Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITIONS

Transport Bill

Mr. Reeves: I desire to present a humble petition addressed to the honourable House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Petition is of several thousands of workers employed by the London Transport Executive—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I repeat, of several thousand workers employed by the London Transport Executive at Charlton, Fulwell and West Ham works, against the denationalisation of road haulage, as it would seriously and adversely affect their present and future livelihood.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that the proposed de-nationalisation be not enacted and the proposals withdrawn, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever humbly pray.
To lie upon the Table.

Dr. Jeger: I desire to present a humble petition addressed to the honourable House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
This petition is signed by 1,200 members of the supervisory, clerical and operative staff of British Road Services employed in the London area of the South-Eastern Division.
These petitioners are anxious about the consequences of the Government's plan, as outlined in the Transport Bill, for the disposal of the assets of the Road Haulage Executive to private individuals.
They state in the petition that they consider that the Road Haulage Executive has performed an excellent job of work in welding 4,000 different undertakings into an integrated, efficient and economical transport system, has made a great contribution to national road safety by placing on the roads of Britain only

vehicles of first-class road worthiness, and has provided its staff with conditions of employment far superior to anything enjoyed before. They say that the proposed plan will result in the squandering of a national asset, create chaos in the nation's transport system, and promote great anxiety among members of the staff of British Road Services and their dependants.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that these proposals be withdrawn, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever humbly pray.
I have in support of this petition 1,600 signatures from employees of British Road Services in the Newton-le-Willow division.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Z Reserve (Exempted Categories)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour if he will publish the list of occupational and employment categories which he has notified to the War Department so that Z reservists in these categories may be excluded from recall for training.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): No, Sir. I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to publish these details now.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Minister be prepared to give an estimate of the numbers who are exempted by this secret schedule of reserved occupations which is being operated?

Sir W. Monckton: If the hon. Member puts down a Question I will look into that.

Call-Up (Government Policy)

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the termination of National Service legislation next year, he will take an early opportunity to acquaint the House with the Government's proposals.

Sir W. Monckton: Present conditions are not such as to enable me to hold out


hope that call-up for National Service can be abandoned as early as the end of 1953. The Government's intentions will be announced as far in advance of that date as possible.

Mr. Craddock: When will the Prime Minister be in a position to notify the House about this very important problem, which affects the lives of so many of our young people?

Sir W. Monckton: I certainly agree about the importance of the problem, but I cannot give a date at present. As soon as I can I will.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not exceedingly important from the standpoint of the young men concerned, having regard to their plans and careers, etc., that the Government should announce their intentions at a very early date. What is meant by advancing the date as early as possible? Is not that very non-committal and ambiguous?

Sir W. Monckton: I should not have thought that there was any ambiguity in saying that we will announce it as far in advance of the date as possible. The date is the end of next year, and as far in advance of that as is possible we will announce our intentions.

Mr. Speir: May I ask the Minister if he will agree about the importance of not reducing the period of National Service so long as it is necessary to maintain the call-up of agricultural workers; and may I ask him also whether he will consider the desirability of making those agricultural workers who have been exempted from the call-up, or deferred, liable to service in either the Territorial Army or the Home Guard?

Sir W. Monckton: That is quite a different question, but I will consider it if the hon. Gentleman will put it on the Order Paper.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does the Minister realise that the party opposite at the last Election declaimed that they would "set the people free," and that, unless this Act is allowed to lapse, they will still be imprisoning, against their will, something like 200,000 youths every year?

Hardship Tribunals

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of divergent de-

cisions by hardship committees on cases for postponement of National Service involving greater sacrifices on the part of some men than others, he will examine the position with a view to obtaining real equality and not paper equality.

Sir W. Monckton: Under present arrangements, which have been in operation since 1939, every determination of a hardship committee is examined and an appeal is made to the umpire in any case where a decision appears not to be in accordance with the principles which he has laid down. I do not think more could be done to ensure substantial uniformity of treatment.

Miss Ward: In view of the fact that yesterday I was told that the information upon which my right hon. and learned Friend might have relied to give me an answer to my Question was not available, may I ask whether he examines the decisions of the various hardship committees, or has he just accepted the generally expressed view which, if I may say so, does not answer my Question at all?

Sir W. Monckton: The first thing I would say about this is that, in view of the number that come forward, I would not pretend to the House that I examine each one myself. They are examined in the Department by people upon whose competence I have reliance, but a good many come through to me, and then I study them myself.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Labour when a call-up for National Service involves the sale of a business and a withdrawal of financial support to dependants, what guidance is given to hardship committees; and what limit is placed on their powers to renew postponement.

Sir W. Monckton: Hardship committees are provided with the relevant Regulations made under the National Service Act, 1948, and with the interpretation placed on these by the umpire in leading cases. There is no limit on their power to renew postponement for six months at a time, subject to the umpire's decision if the case goes to appeal.

Miss Ward: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it was conveyed


to me that there was a limit and that people could not be permanently postponed from serving; and if that information was incorrect, may I ask him to return to the cases I submitted to him in which a wrong interpretation of his powers has been given to me?

Sir W. Monckton: I am sorry to find my hon. Friend thinks that a wrong interpretation has been placed. What I said in my answer was that there is no limit on their power to renew postponement for six months at a time. That is, of course, postponement. It will still leave the man with a liability to serve before he gets out of his age.

Miss Ward: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I quite realise the answer he gave to my Question, but I adhere to my supplementary question?

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Labour in how many cases of postponement for National Service he has appealed to the umpire for an increase in the period granted by hardship committees; how many for a reduction in the period granted; and with what result.

Sir W. Monckton: If a hardship committee has granted some period of postponement the man himself has the right to apply for renewal and there is no need for me to appeal for an extension. In the 12 months ending 30th September, 1952, I appealed in 22 cases against refusal of postponement and all of these were allowed. In the same period, I appealed in 158 cases against the grant of postponement and in eight cases for a reduction in the period granted: 135 of the former and all of the latter were allowed.

Miss Ward: Then may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend if it is not a fact that the hardship committees have not really got the power which my right hon. and learned Friend indicated, and I still want to ask him if he can tell me how he secures that all parts of the country get the same treatment, because I am convinced that they do not?

Sir W. Monckton: I think that in accordance with those who preceded me, I do my best to secure conformity, but 30 years' experience in the law has shown me it is impossible to obtain it in all cases because of human frailty.

Mr. Shinwell: Do not these Questions addressed to the right hon. and learned Gentleman by the hon. Member opposite, and the existence of many other anomalies which must be known to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, justify a review of the National Service Acts, and would not the Government consider that proposal?

Sir W. Monckton: I am always ready to look into any anomalies brought to my attention, but I do not think the conclusion which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn is justified.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the Minister say what principle he goes on in making these appeals and what has been the effect on unemployment in Scotland?

Sir W. Monckton: To the second part of the question I shall not venture to make a confident reply. As to the first, the principle I try to adopt is this: I see what the umpire, who is the highest authority in this matter, has laid down, and I try to see that so far as possible his principles are consistently applied in the cases which come before me. If I see they are not, I suggest an appeal.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Dock Workers

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that for the Royal group of docks, average daily unemployment rose among dock workers from 1,022 in April, 1952, to 1,432 in September, 1952, an average of 1,175 during this period against an average of 369 for the corresponding period in 1951; what was the reason for this absolute increase of 806 from 1951 to 1952; and what action he proposes to take to bring about full employment among the dock workers in the Royal group of docks.

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Minister of Labour (1) why unemployment among dockworkers has risen from an average of 3,513 in September, 1951, to an average of 18,027 in mid-October, 1952; and what action he proposes to take to reduce this figure;
(2) why unemployment among London dock workers increased from an average of 3,349 in June to 6,275 in mid-October;


and what action he proposes to take in view of this increase.

Sir W. Monckton: The rise in the average number of registered dock workers surplus to requirements is largely due to a decline in imports and exports. More regular employment in the docks is dependent upon an increase in trade, which it is the declared policy of the Government to promote by every means in their power.

Mr. Lewis: I know the Minister is very concerned at this serious rise in unemployment. Has his attention been drawn to the leading article in this morning's "Daily Mirror," in which certain suggestions are made. It says:
men should not have to sit around all day in cafes wasting their time and money, merely to be on call.
It goes on further to say that it is wrong they should have to be on call as many as 11 times in a week and that really during this period they should be relieved of that necessity. Will the Minister consider that suggestion so far as the dockers are concerned while this abnormal position obtains?

Mr. Mellish: Will the Minister be good enough, before he changes anything in dockland, to take into consideration the views of the trade unions?

Sir W. Monckton: I should certainly do that. On the other matter, I am obliged to the hon. Member for West Ham, North for drawing my attention to the article he mentioned which—I think exceptionally—I have not seen, but I will pay attention to it.

Sir W. Smithers: Is not the real reason for unemployment in the docks the policy of restriction of imports, which inevitably means restriction of exports? Will my right hon. and learned Friend urge the Government to do away with those restrictions as soon as possible?

Mr. Royle: asked the Minister of Labour how many workers at Salford docks are registered as unemployed or are signing on under guaranteed wage agreements; and if he will make a statement on his meeting with the Dock Labour Board.

Sir W. Monckton: In the week ending 8th November the number of registered

dock workers surplus to requirements at Salford docks was 269, or 10.9 per cent. of the local register. I have no statement to make about my meeting with the National Dock Labour Board, the purpose of which was to give an opportunity for an exchange of information.

Mr. Royle: Will the Minister be able to tell us when he can give us a report on what he discussed with the Dock Labour Board? Further, can he give us any indication on behalf of his right hon. Friends about when this matter of policy in regard to imports and exports is to be tackled by the Government?

Sir W. Monckton: The answer to the first part of the question is that I am still in communication with the National Dock Labour Board, giving them some information. I am anticipating hearing from them in the near future. As soon as I do, I will make known to the House what has happened. As to the second part of the hon. Member's question, as he will realise, that matter is not wholly within my province, but I do what I can.

Mr. Gaitskell: Could the Minister tell us what increase in volume of imports and exports would be necessary to restore full employment in the dock areas?

Sir W. Monckton: I think I must ask for notice of that question.

Mr. Irvine: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a report to the House upon his recent discussions with members of the National Dock Labour Board.

Sir W. Monckton: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle).

Mr. Irvine: Will the Minister bear in mind the desirability of giving as much information as is possible of the discussions now going on about the policy to be pursued, in view of the general anxiety which is felt on this subject?

Sir W. Monckton: I can very well understand the anxiety of the hon. Member, which I share, but I think it would be better for me to make a statement to the House when the present discussions are concluded. I shall not delay it then.

Sir J. Crowder: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that the increased levy to be paid by the employers to the National Dock Labour Board must be passed on to the consumer and will therefore mean a rise in the cost of exports abroad, which is a very serious position?

Sir W. Monckton: The repercussions of the increased levy are very much in my mind.

Mr. Awbery: Will the Minister make available to the House a copy of the reports of the port efficiency committees set up in March of this year and which no one has yet seen?

Sir W. Monckton: Perhaps I may be allowed to look into that.

Disabled Persons (Inquiry)

Mr. G. R. Howard: asked the Minister of Labour for a statement as to the employment of disabled persons.

Sir W. Monckton: After consultation with my right hon. Friends, I have accepted the recommendation of the National Advisory Council on the Employment of the Disabled that a further inquiry should be held into all aspects of the rehabilitation and resettlement of disabled persons. The composition and terms of reference of this inquiry are under consideration.

Mr. Howard: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this will cause great satisfaction, and we hope the answer will soon be forthcoming? I also hope that my right hon. and learned Friend is aware that many of his local employment agencies, especially in the St. Ives division, have already been of great help in this matter.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Will the Minister consider including the special position of the house-bound in the terms of reference of the proposed inquiry?

Sir W. Monckton: That is one of the points which I think must be considered by anyone dealing with the question of the disabled.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will the terms of reference include reference to the quota of 3 per cent. and whether it is high enough at the present time?

Sir W. Monckton: I think I had better say about that question that the terms of reference have to be arranged between myself and my right hon. Friends. They are being discussed at official level, and I shall make an announcement as soon as I can.

Miss Ward: Can my right hon. and learned Friend give any indication of the types of people or of the organisations he intends to invite to serve on the committee, or has that not yet been decided?

Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir. That is the very point which has not yet been decided. It has to be considered not by me alone but by some of my right hon. Friends also.

Mr. Lee: Is the Minister aware that those of us who are concerned about the employment of the disabled are very worried about the Home Secretary's decision to increase the working hours in prisons, as we know the competition which exists for work in Government Departments as between prisoners and Remploy employees? Is the Minister sure that this will not adversely affect Remploy?

Sir W. Monckton: I think that is a different question, but I will certainly pay attention to it.

Labour Attachés, U.S.A.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Labour what reductions in the number of labour attachés to British consular offices in the United States of America have taken place during the last 12 months; and what steps are being taken to fill existing vacancies in labour attaché posts.

Sir W. Monckton: One assistant labour attaché, who had to relinquish his post in Chicago owing to ill-health, has not yet been replaced. The question of appointing a successor is under consideration.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Minister aware how valuable the services of these officers are, and how important it is to maintain a full complement in view of the work they do in improving for example, the relationship between trade unionists in both our countries?

Sir W. Monckton: I do my best to impose that point of view on my colleagues. I am obliged to the hon. Member for giving that support.

Lancaster

Mr. F. Maclean: asked the Minister of Labour (1) the unemployment figures for the borough of Lancaster for each month over the past six months;
(2) the unemployment figures for the borough of Lancaster for the month of November over the past six years.

NUMBERS OF UNEMPLOYED PERSONS ON THE REGISTERS OF THE LANCASTER EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE AND YOUTH EMPLOYMENT OFFICE AT THE UNDERMENTIONED DATES


Date
Males
Females
Total


Wholly Unemployed
Temporarily Stopped
Wholly Unemployed
Temporarily Stopped


13th October, 1947
…
90
2
156
—
248


11th October, 1948
…
98
—
43
—
141


10th October, 1949
…
104
—
76
1
181


16th October, 1950
…
115
3
74
2
194


15th October, 1951
…
115
—
119
29
263


12th May, 1952
…
…
247
8
210
96
561


16th June, 1952
…
…
213
6
143
72
434


13th July, 1952
…
…
225
235
112
137
709


11th August, 1952
…
266
6
118
65
455


15th September, 1952
…
238
212
129
116
695


13th October, 1952
…
239
—
149
86
474

Durham and Crook

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Labour the number of adult males and females and the number of juvenile males and females who are unemployed at the Durham and Crook employment exchanges, County Durham.

Sir W. Monckton: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The following table gives the information desired.

NUMBERS OF UNEMPLOYED PERSONS ON THE REGISTERS OF THE DURHAM AND CROOK EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES AND YOUTH EMPLOYMENT OFFICES AT 13TH OCTOBER, 1952.


—
Men aged 18 and over
Boys under 18
Women aged 18 and over
Girls under 18
Total


Durham
251
17
117
33
418


Crook
217
2
49
10
278

Sir W. Monckton: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Figures for November, 1952, are not yet available and figures are therefore given for a series of October dates in the table below, together with the figures for May—September, 1952.

Tailoring and Dressmaking

Mr. Burden: asked the Minister of Labour the number of workers engaged in the manufacture of women's outerwear who were unemployed or on short-time during the week ended 27th October, 1951; and how the figure compares for the week ended 25th October, 1952.

Sir W. Monckton: I cannot give figures separately for the manufacture of women's outerwear but only for the tailoring and dressmaking trades as a whole. In these trades there were on 15th October, 1951, 7,929 wholly unemployed and 11,007 temporarily stopped. On 13th October, 1952, there were 5,402 wholly unemployed and 2,516 temporarily stopped—a total decrease of 11,018.

Mr. Burden: Would my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that although these figures are not wholly satisfactory they show a considerable improvement over those of last year and will bring considerable encouragement to the textile industry, which was neglected by the previous Government?

Mr. H. Hynd: Can the Minister say how long it took the hon. Member to find one industry in which unemployment has decreased?

Sir W. Monckton: I can only say that if he had asked me I could have given him several.

Slaughtermen

Captain Duncan: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to encourage the entry into the trade of slaughterhousemen in the increased numbers likely to be necessary under Her Majesty's Government's policy of moderate concentration of slaughterhouses in Great Britain; and what arrangement he is making for training such men.

Sir W. Monckton: While it is too early to say how the new policy for siting slaughterhouses will affect the number of slaughtermen required, the Joint Industrial Council for the industry has recently drawn up an apprenticeship scheme for young workers entering the industry.

Captain Duncan: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the National Farmers' Unions of England and Scotland are developing a tentative marketing scheme to take over from the Ministry of Food; that two prerequisites of that are sufficient slaughterhouses and sufficient slaughtermen; and that there is a shortage of both at the present moment. Will my right hon. and learned Friend deal with the slaughterhouse question?

Sir W. Monckton: So far as the slaughterhouse question is concerned, the policy statement already made in this House does not involve a very large reduction in the number of slaughter points now being used by the Ministry of Food. But it does mean that there will be a considerable reduction on the pre-war figure of the number of slaughterhouses. It is too soon at present to know whether we shall need more than the scheme of which I spoke.

Mr. M. MacMillan: Would the Minister consider grouping that answer with the answer to Questions Nos. 29 and 30?

Aeronautical Engineers' Dispute, London Airport

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on the dispute concerning the employment of members of the Aeronautical Engineers' Association at London Airport.

Sir W. Monckton: I am informed that as part of a plan for re-organisation, British European Airways intend to transfer to London Airport the maintenance and repair staff now employed at Northolt. This has given rise to certain questions affecting the arrangements at London Airport and I understand that these are at present under discussion on the appropriate panel of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport. In these circumstances, I would ask the House to excuse me from making any further statement.

Mr. Hollis: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply, may I ask him if it is not a fact that these discussions took place yesterday; and is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that that was the reason why I hoped he would be able to make a statement today?

Sir W. Monckton.: There was a meeting yesterday, but discussions are to be resumed at a later date. I do not want to say anything which would prejudice the outcome of those discussions.

Oral Answers to Questions — RETAIL PRICES INDEX

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour details of the latest retail prices index; and how far this takes account of the increase in the prices of rationed foods made on 5th October.

Sir W. Monckton: At 14th October, 1952, the Interim Index of Retail Prices was 138 compared with 136 at 16th September. This rise takes fully into account the increase in the prices of rationed foods made on 5th October. Full details will be published as usual in this month's issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette.

Mr. Lewis: Is that not disgraceful, considering that the Government promised more than 12 months ago that they were going to bring down the cost of living and more than 12 months later the cost of


living is going up? Is it not about time the Government did something about it or got out?

Sir W. Monckton: Of course one is sorry to see that the index is now at 138, but I would remind the House that it was at 138 in June and July, that it went down in August and September and has now gone up to 138.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Local Development (Cairncross Report)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet considered, in conjunction with the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Trade, the recommendations in the recent Cairncross Report; and with what result.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): This Report is being carefully considered by the Government.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State realise that Professor Cairncross and the Scottish Council have put into his hands a lifebelt to prevent him from being submerged by the growing unemployment in Scotland, and why will he not use it immediately for that purpose?

Mr. Stuart: I realise that this is a most valuable Report. It opens up questions of long-term policy, including capital investment limits. I would also refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the statement by the President of the Board of Trade in this House on 29th October, which is relevant.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Secretary of State aware that this Report was published about five months ago and that one of the recommendations was that there should be some diversification of industry in Central Fife? Can he indicate how long it will be before some positive steps are taken to enable women and girls in that part of Fife to get employment?

Mr. Stuart: I recognise these problems. They are difficult ones, and we are pressing on with the discussions.

National Library (Expenditure)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the total expenditure on the National Library, Scotland,

increased from £61,787 in 1951–52 to £87,654 in 1952–53.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that the increase in estimated expenditure on the National Library of Scotland for the year 1952–53 is due almost entirely to the progress that is now being made with the Library's urgently-required new building.

Agricultural Workers (Call-up)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has recently made of the effect the call-up of agricultural workers for Her Majesty's Forces will have upon agricultural production in Scotland.

Mr. J. Stuart: Because of the special deferment arrangements, it is not expected that agricultural production in Scotland will suffer to any material extent.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that that answer is in flat contradiction to the experience of the Ayrshire branch of the National Farmers' Union, and does he realise that there is growing disquiet in Scotland at the fact that men are being called up at the same time as farmers are asked to increase production? Can he say how that production will be increased?

Mr. Stuart: The total call-up of agricultural workers in Scotland brings in 800 men in a year, which is a little over 1 per cent. of the total male labour employed in agriculture. The call-up affects not more than one in 20 farms. However, we are keeping the matter under most careful review.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Ayrshire Executive of the National Farmers' Union are convinced—and they have asked the Ayrshire M.P.s to bring this strongly to his notice—that crop acreage will be down in Ayrshire unless some regard is paid to this question of men being called up from agricultural work just when they are needed in an expanding economy for the provision of food supplies?

Mr. Stuart: I sincerely hope that there will not be a decrease. As I have said, we are watching the position very carefully. The number of farms affected is not very large.

Clyde River Pollution Board

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in setting up a Clyde River Pollution Board.

Mr. J. Stuart: As I told the hon. Member on 17th June, I have sent draft proposals to the 21 local authorities concerned. Glasgow Corporation, who have the predominant interest, are taking the initiative in calling the various authorities together. I understand that the subcommittee responsible for the arrangements is meeting tomorrow, and I hope that a general meeting of all the authorities concerned to discuss the proposals will be held at an early date.

Mr. Maitland: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the progress which he has been able to announce, may I ask him whether he is aware that complaints against the pollution of the Clyde continue to be made and that as recently as last Saturday one appeared in the "Hamilton Advertiser" describing the river at Garrion Bridge as running as thick as tar? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the interests of anglers are seriously affected by this continued nuisance?

Mrs. Mann: Will not the Secretary of State consider the fact that local authorities dislike river pollution and should not he set up a Clyde River "Non-Pollution" Board?

Mr. Stuart: I think we might say that the meeting which is being convened will be dealing with "non-pollution," if that is the correct expression. I certainly realise the feeling on this subject which my hon. Friend has expressed.

Temporary School Accommodation

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many school classes are now being taught in buildings other than schools; and what were the corresponding figures for a year ago.

Mr. J. Stuart: I regret that precise figures are not available. Moreover, such figures by themselves would be misleading since they would not show whether a class was being taught in a building other than a school for the greater part of a school week or only for an occasional period, and I should not feel justified in

asking authorities for special returns in the detail that would be necessary to bring this out.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Secretary of State aware that in answer to a Question last week I got information that the number of local authorities using buildings other than schools had decreased? Does not he agree, therefore, that it would be a comparatively easy matter to ask those authorities who are now using buildings other than schools to say how many children are being taught in those buildings, because I think that the answer given last week was an attempt to mislead the House?

Mr. Stuart: I hope not. I am not trying to withhold any information from the hon. Gentleman. I will give him all I can, but I am afraid that I have no information at the moment which I can absolutely guarantee to be accurate.

Mr. Ross: Is it not about time that the Secretary of State for Scotland had this information? How can he properly allocate building materials for school building unless he knows how many school children are being taught in huts, Army camps and—this happens in one case—model lodging houses?

Mr. Stuart: Obviously, when a local authority applies for a licence to build a new school, all these matters are investigated.

Crimes of Violence

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many adults and juveniles, respectively, were convicted in Scotland of crimes of violence in each of the three years preceding the coming into operation of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948; how many of them were sentenced to corporal punishment; and how many persons have been convicted of such crimes in each subsequent year; and
(2) in how many cases corporal punishment has been inflicted for offences in Scottish prisons in each year since 1945.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the statistics of convictions of crimes of violence in 1945 and each subsequent year. The average for the years 1945 to 1947 is 662; the average for the subsequent period is 429.
Since 1862 no Scottish court has had power to sentence an adult to corporal punishment except for an assault on the Sovereign or a second conviction of living on immoral earnings. Whipping as a court penalty for juveniles was abolished on 13th September, 1948; since 1944 it had been ordered for crimes of violence by juveniles only six times, all in 1946.
As regards prison offences, the power to order the infliction of corporal punishment in Scotland which was abolished by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949, was exercisable only in the case of convicts in Peterhead prison who were guilty of mutiny, incitement to mutiny, or grave personal violence to a prison officer. It was last exercised in 1934 in one case.

Captain Duncan: As for 90 years we have had, broadly, no corporal punishment for adults in Scotland, would my right hon. Friend agree that, as long as the cases submitted to the courts receive the sentences they deserve, there is no need for corporal punishment?

Mr. Ross: Where are the floggers?

Following are the statistics:

PERSONS AGAINST WHOM CHARGES OF CRIMES OF VIOLENCE WERE PROVED IN SCOTLAND


Year
Adults
Juveniles
Total


1945
873
54
927


1946
456
49
505


1947
519
36
555


1948
477
49
526


1949
301
28
329


1950
296
45
341


1951
428
65
493


1952 (first six months)
219
23
242

Electricity Supplies

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be able to announce the results of the Government's examination into the question of the supply of electricity in Scotland.

Mr. J. Stuart: The examination is being pressed forward, but I cannot yet say when it will be complete.

Mr. Rankin: Could the Secretary of State say whether or not the examination is comprehending the work of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board?

Mr. Stuart: Certainly, Sir. As I told the hon. Gentleman on 4th December, that is the case.

Mr. Rankin: Can the Secretary of State say whether or not it is proposed in any way to interfere with the purposes and duties of the Hydro-Electric Board?

Mr. Stuart: I answered that on 4th December, when I said:
I do not contemplate that any change in the present organisation of the electricity industry in Scotland would impair the special responsibilities for the Highlands and Islands placed on the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board by the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 4th December, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 2199.]

Kingston Public Hall, Glasgow

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the lack of public halls in the Tradeston Division of Glasgow, he will now give permission for the restoration of Kingston Public Hall.

Mr. J. Stuart: While I fully recognise the claims of this area for a public hall, I regret that, in view of the necessary limitations of capital investment, I cannot at present authorise this project, which is estimated to cost £45,000. I shall, however, reconsider the case as soon as circumstances permit.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Secretary of State not aware that, quite recently, he has granted planning permission for the erection of a cinema in that part of my division, and how can he reconcile the erection of a cinema in a part of my division where there is no need for any further cinema with his refusal to grant permission for a hall where no hall exists?

Mr. Stuart: Planning permission only has been granted up to date in the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I will certainly consider such cases as this as soon as I can.

Town Development Act, 1952

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Town Development Act, 1952, has not been extended to Scotland.

Mr. J. Stuart: The reason is that the Scottish conditions differ in character and


extent from those with which the Act is designed to deal. Suitable action will be taken in Scotland as the need arises.

Mrs. Mann: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, in view of the difficult distribution of the population in Scotland, and particularly in view of the Report of the Advisory Council on planning our new homes, the Town Development Act, 1952, is particularly suitable and necessary to Scotland?

Mr. Stuart: My advice is that we have no particular overspill problem in Scotland. The Act to which the hon. Lady refers dealt with overspill population.

Mrs. Mann: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that one half of the population resides in the Clyde Valley, that there is de-population in the Highlands, and a great need for overspill accommodation throughout the Clyde Valley; and that most urgent of all is the question of the money that is required? Why should England get the money, and Scotland be left without?

Mr. Stuart: The Clyde Valley Regional Planning Advisory Committee has dealt with, and is considering at the present time, the problems of the Clyde.

District Nurse, Roseneath and Clynder

Mr. Steele: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when it is proposed to fill the vacancy for a district nurse at Roseneath and Clynder.

Mr. J. Stuart: This is a matter for the county council, who, I understand, have decided not to fill the vacancy in Roseneath and Clynder, because they are satisfied that the two nurses in nearby adjacent areas, each of whom is provided with a car, can adequately cover the work between them.

Mr. Steele: Is the Secretary of State aware that there has been a district nurse in this area for the past 30 years, and that there is no district nurse available nearby? Could he use his powers to induce the county council to get an appointment made in this area?

Mr. Stuart: As I have said, and as the hon. Gentleman agrees, it is a matter for the county council, and they are of the opinion that the provision of cars makes the additional appointment unnecessary.

Probation Officers (Salary Claim)

Mr. Steele: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has come to a decision on the claim by the probation officers in Scotland for an increase in salary.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am informed that the probation officers have asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour to refer their claim for an increase of salary to arbitration. Until the result of the arbitration is known I can take no action.

Mr. Steele: Is the Minister aware that probation officers in England and Wales received an increase in salary many months ago, that Scottish probation officers have put in an application for the same rate of salaries, but that up to the present this has not been granted? Can the Minister give an undertaking that when the recommendations are made he will ensure that probation officers in Scotland do not receive a lesser salary than that received by probation officers in England and Wales?

Mr. Stuart: I am afraid I cannot say anything while this matter is being considered. It is at present under arbitration.

Mr. Steele: Cannot the Minister at least give an undertaking that when the recommendations are put forward he will not accept anything less for probation officers in Scotland than that received by probation officers in England and Wales?

Mr. Stuart: That is a different question. I must first see the result of the arbitration.

North Hydro-Electric Board (Flood Damage)

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with the repair of flood damage to the Loch Quoich and Loch Garry hydro-electric works; and whether any further damage has occurred.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am informed by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board that work on the repair of the damage done to the contractors' temporary structures at Loch Quoich is still in progress,


but that further high flows have hampered operations. At Loch Garry no repairs were necessary because other arrangements were made and no further damage has occurred.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING, SCOTLAND

Non-Traditional Houses

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what opportunity is afforded to local authorities to decide the type of non-traditional permanent house they will build when extra allocations are offered them.

Mr. J. Stuart: In ordinary circumstances, subject to the price and supply being satisfactory, local authorities are free to make their own selection from the approved types.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Secretary of State aware that my Question deals with extra allocations, and that local authority representatives have told me that they are being offered only one type of nontraditional permanent house, and that the price of that house is much in excess of what they can get by open tender in their own area? Is he also aware that they are disturbed about it and would like freedom to select the type of house which they want to build in their own area?

Mr. Stuart: In so far as it is possible, and taking into account the use of scarce materials, price, etc., local authorities are not restricted to one particular type of house.

Housing Needs

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will furnish details regarding the extent of the housing problem in Scotland.

Mr. J. Stuart: The Scottish Housing Advisory Committee estimated in 1943 that 500,000 additional houses were needed in Scotland. Since then, nearly 168,000 new houses have been built. A close estimate of the present position could be obtained only by means of a detailed survey, and I hesitate to put such a burden on local authorities at the present time.

Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is many year's since that survey was taken, and that there is

now a great need for a proper survey to be made? Would he not agree that he should set in motion machinery that would allow us to gauge properly the real extent of our housing problem in Scotland in order that we may make long-term plans to solve it?

Mr. Stuart: In 1950, local authorities were approached about this particular matter, but they were unanimous in saying that they did not think the time was opportune. As we know, the fact is that there is a great deal of housing to be done. Still, I am glad to say that it is being accomplished more rapidly, and I think our energies would be best directed if used to this end.

Mr. Manuel: Will the Secretary of State make sure that houses are being built in the proper areas in order to meet the industrial needs of Scotland? Is he aware that a survey would enable houses to be built to meet the needs of the workers in the places where they are needed?

Mr. Stuart: All the houses that are being built are needed.

Rent Tribunals

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to indicate the number of rent tribunals operating in Scotland; and the number of cases they have dealt with up to the last convenient date.

Mr. J. Stuart: There are 29 rent tribunals in Scotland. The total number of cases referred to them up to 30th September, 1952, was 4,701.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Secretary of State aware that these rent tribunals have been doing excellent work in Scotland, and that they have put an end to a great deal of exploitation in many areas in the cases of people who were living in sub-let accommodation? Will he give a firm pledge to the House that he will continue these rent tribunals, and also see to it that greater publicity is given to them in certain areas in Scotland where they are not given enough work to do but which, I think, they would have if these rent tribunals were more widely known?

Mr. Stuart: All local authority areas are served by these tribunals at present, and I have not expressed any intention of discontinuing their appointment.

Houses for Letting

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why additional allocations of new council houses to tenants of privately-owned houses fails to affect the total number of houses available for letting.

Mr. J. Stuart: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my hon. and gallant Friend gave to her on 11th November. I have no reason to suppose that the total number of privately-owned rented houses being sold approaches the total annual addition to the letting pool by local authority building, but if the hon. Member has any figures on the subject I should be glad to have them.

Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is an astonishing reply, along with the one that I received last week, and shows that the Secretary of State and his assistants are totally unaware of the position in Scotland whereby every empty house is put up at exploitation prices to the highest bidder? Is it not time that we sent the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretaries to Wales?

Mr. Stuart: On balance, there has been a considerable increase in the number of houses completed for letting purposes.

Rent Restriction Acts (Publicity)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities publish to tenants and owners the information available for them in terms of the Rent Restriction Acts.

Mr. J. Stuart: The information asked for is not available, and could be obtained only by means of a special return.

Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the information is available for all local authorities in England, and that I do not see why it cannot be available for Scotland, unless it is the case that there is no interest, at a high level in Scotland, in getting such information?

Mr. Osborne: Was the information available during the six years of Socialist Government?

East Kilbride Development Corporation

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many building workers were employed by the East Kilbride Development Corporation on the first day of each month in the year 1952; and what is the number of houses which had been completed by the corporation by the same date.

Mr. J. Stuart: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Maitland: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the number of building workers has increased by approximately 100 per cent. over the past year and whether, at the same time, the tempo of the rate of increase of housing completions, of site preparations and of putting houses out to contract has not increased by more than 15 per cent.?

Mr. Stuart: My hon. Friend will see the figures. There has, of course, been an increase in the labour force, but there has also been a considerable increase in houses completed and under construction.

Following is the reply:

The information asked for by the hon. Member is not available for the precise dates specified in the Question. The following table gives the information required by reference to the dates determined for the purposes of the Department of Health's official returns:


EAST KILBRIDE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


—
Houses Completed
Labour Employed on Housing


26th December, 1951
320
255


30th January, 1952
320
257


27th February, 1952
323
301


2nd April, 1952
343
362


30th April, 1952
357
369


24th May, 1952
381
444


28th June, 1952
389
582


26th July, 1952
413
509


23rd August, 1952
422
753


27th September, 1952
483
787


25th October, 1952
502
959

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Regional and District Offices (Amenities)

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will take steps to


ensure that financial stringency will not prevent the equipment of his regional and district offices with adequate and suitable furniture and amenities in the interests of the health and efficiency of the staffs.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): I can assure the hon. Member that everything possible is being done to improve, where necessary, the equipment of my offices in order to secure reasonable working conditions for the staff.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister satisfied that everything possible is being done, and is not he aware that in many of these regional and district offices the staffs are working in overcrowded conditions surrounded by open files—conditions which existed during and after the war—and will he make an examination immediately of a situation which is in deplorable contrast with the very fine improvement which has been made in the reception of pensioners in these offices?

Mr. Amory: The hon. Member will know the difficulties regarding accommodation which have obtained since the war, but I am satisfied that substantial and steady progress is being made. If he has any particular case in mind, perhaps he will write to me about it.

Administrative Costs

Mr. Renton: asked the Minister of Pensions what steps he has taken during 1952, and what steps he will be taking in 1953, in order to reduce substantially the administration costs of his Department.

Mr. Amory: Various measures for securing administrative economies have been adopted, including the closing of establishments, and improvements in internal processes. A reduction of nearly 2,500 staff has taken place in the last four years, including a reduction of over 600 up to date during 1952. Every effort will be made to achieve further economies during 1953, so far as may be consistent with the maintenance of the Department's services for the war disabled.

Mr. Renton: Does the answer given by my hon. Friend indicate that his Department was seriously overstaffed by comparison with its needs before the present Government came into power?

Mr. Amory: My hon. Friend will bear in mind, of course, that the number of pensions in payment is steadily reducing, and that has enabled us to produce the results I have mentioned.

Oral Answers to Questions — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the increase during the past 70 years in delegated legislation and the power of Government Departments to adjudicate, he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to examine the increasing powers of the bureaucracy.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): The vigilance of Parliament should be directed to this important aspect of our polity especially when examining Bills brought before this House. The question of a Royal Commission or other form of inquiry is one which must be borne in mind. There is to be a debate on Thursday next which is likely to raise certain aspects of this important issue.

Sir W. Smithers: In order to arrest further progress down the Socialist-Communist totalitarian road, will my right hon. Friend instruct all his Ministers and all Government servants to read and study Professor Keeton's book just published entitled "The Passing of Parliament"?

The Prime Minister: I have not read the book in question, nor have I had it examined so that I could be advised upon it. I think I ought to have notice before I undertake to instruct all Ministers and public Departments as to the attitude they should adopt on such a topic.

Mr. E. Fletcher: May we assume from the Prime Minister's reply that the House will be given the fullest opportunity on Thursday and subsequent days of discussing the Amendments on the Order Paper designed to curtail the Government's powers of imposing their will on the country by delegated legislation?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid I should be stepping outside my province if I laid down beforehand the exact conditions of the debate on Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA (MR. EISENHOWER'S VISIT)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether the statement made by the Foreign Secretary in New York on 8th November concerning a proposal that a British Minister should accompany the President of the United States of America to Korea represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government; and whether he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: No such statement was made.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Prime Minister aware of the deep concern felt by the people of this country at the whole question of the Korean conflict, and will he take an early opportunity of asking the President-Elect of the United States to allow the Minister of Defence of this country to accompany him to Korea, or, better still, for the Prime Minister himself to accompany Mr. Eisenhower when he goes to Korea?

The Prime Minister: I am fully aware of the deep concern felt by the hon. Member in many matters above his comprehension.

Mr. Lewis: If I understood the Prime Minister aright, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is not in the rules of order that no aspersions or rude remarks should be made by a Minister in reply to a supplementary question? In view of the Prime Minister's supplementary reply, would not I be right in assuming that because of the complete muck-up made by the Prime Minister last night in replying to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), he is now trying to get his own back?

Mr. Speaker: I heard no aspersions made of an objectionable character. I must confess myself that there are many things above my comprehension.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL STYLE AND TITLE

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister what further consideration he has given to the question of the introduction of legislation concerning the style and title of the Sovereign.

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Governments here and in the Commonwealth have been in consultation on this question, and I hope that the forthcoming

Commonwealth meeting may afford an opportunity to carry forward our discussions. I cannot make any statement at present.

Mr. Rankin: I thank the Prime Minister for that declaration, which is an advance on the statement made last February when I first raised this matter. But I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would put this further consideration to the conference when the matter is discussed? Will he ask the conference to note that in June next year the Sovereign will use the Stone of Destiny on which Kenneth MacAlpine was crowned King of Scotland in 844—

Mr. Glanville: rose—

Mr. Rankin: —and that she herself descends in unbroken—

Mr. Glanville: In view of the importance to the industrial workers of Question No. 48, would the Prime Minister be kind enough to answer it?

Mr. Rankin: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. Member for Tradeston had resumed his seat and I called Mr. Glanville.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. May I submit that it is surely competent for me to ask on what ground my supplementary question is being ruled out of order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member resumed his seat and I thought that he had finished.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORONATION PROCESSION (INDUSTRIAL REPRESENTATION)

Mr. Glanville: asked the Prime Minister what arrangements are proposed to include contingents representing all aspects of industrial life in the Coronation Procession in order to make the Procession fully representative of the industrial as well as the military power of Britain.

The Prime Minister: The arrangements for the Procession are in the hands of the Coronation Commission and I expect that they will recommend that only military formations should be included. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] You must


think of the spectators. Representatives of industry will of course be invited to Westminster Abbey and many places will be available for them in the stands on the route.

Mr. Glanville: Is the Prime Minister aware that I am not asking that the representatives of industry should be included? I am asking that the actual producers of wealth from every industry in the country, agricultural workers, miners and steel workers—a contingent from each one—should be in the Procession.
I know that the Prime Minister is a great lover of glamour and the limelight. I know that there is nothing in which he excels more than in that; but these representatives are not the men that produce the wealth of the country. Is he aware that I want the industrial workers who made all those Tory millionaires on the other side of the House to be included?

The Prime Minister: When I have had the advantage of reading HANSARD I will most carefully consider the question of outside candidates for places in the procession.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. When I was putting my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I gave way to a point of order which had been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Glanville). Why then should that rob me of the right to put my supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: First of all, the hon. Member is mistaken if he thinks that he has a right to ask a supplementary question. He has not got that, though I try to accommodate hon. Members in that respect as fairly and as well as I can. In fact, the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Glanville) did not rise to a point of order. He rose at the end of a very lengthy supplementary question by the hon. Member for Tradeston, and I thought that the hon. Member for Tradeston had finished his speech. He is now too late.

Mr. Rankin: Further to my point of order. I submit that my supplementary question was not of undue length. In any event, I was raising a point which is of great interest to a great many people and to which the Prime Minister was giving his close attention. I gave way on

appeal to a point of order and I submit that I ought to be allowed to complete my supplementary question, which was not a speech.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: We have not suspended the Rule.

Mr. Speaker: There are many points of great interest at Question time, but other hon. Members have rights too and I have to watch over that.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING LICENSING LIMITS (CHANGES)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. HURD: To ask the Minister of Works if he has reviewed the effects of raising to £200 the licence-free limit on house repairs and maintenance; and if he will now raise the limit still further.

Mr. RAIKES: To ask the Minister of Works whether he intends to raise the present limit up to which a private house owner may repair or construct without applying for a licence.

Mr. NABARRO: To ask the Minister of Works whether he will give details of the proposed increases to be allowed in industrial building; the method of licence applications to be followed by manufacturers requiring to extend premises; and what variations are to be made in the current licence-free limit of £500 per annum for industrial buildings.

Mr. HOLLIS: To ask the Minister of Works whether he will relax or abolish the £200 limit on repair work to houses.

The Minister of Works (Mr. David Eccles): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about building licensing limits in reply to Questions Nos. 106, 107, 108 and 109.
I have three changes to announce in the licensing system. Early this year the volume of maintenance work of all kinds showed signs of falling off. From 1st July last the free limit for housing and general work was raised from £100 to £200 in a period of 12 months, but this increase did not arrest the decline. I now propose to alter the licensing period to the calendar year. This change will help


painters and other building workers for whom there is usually less work in the winter.
The current licensing period, for which the limits are £500 for industrial and agricultural buildings and £200 for all other buildings, will be brought to an end on 31st December next. This means that the full amounts will be available during the period of six months. For the calendar year 1953 the free limits will be for industrial and agricultural buildings £2,000 and for all other buildings £500.
I propose to discuss with the associations of local authorities how we can take full advantage of the savings in administration which these changes make possible.

Mr. Stokes: As this means virtually no limit in private building repairs and puts up the allowance for industry by 300 per cent. over the present allowance, will the Minister say how much extra labour will be required on each of these two groups as a result of these increases? Secondly, will he say where the labour will come from, and thirdly, whether he is satisfied that the necessary materials, including steel, will be available in sufficient quantities?

Mr. Eccles: I do not think that these increases will do more than arrest the present decline in repairs and maintenance. Taking the housing limit, in July and August the local authorities, who act for me, gave licences under £500 for £3,500,000 and only refused licences for £58,000. There is therefore no point in maintaining this apparatus of control.
On the materials and labour points, it follows that if the volume does not increase, and I do not think that it will, there will not be any more materials used. In any case, I hope that all sections of the industry will economise in the materials which are scarce. Steel is not very much used in this maintenance work.

Mr. Stokes: I understand, of course, that if nothing happens, nothing happens. But I understood the Minister to say that he had come to this conclusion in order to absorb what he considered to be surplus labour. What calculation has he made of the probable absorption of labour and where it will come from? The answer that nothing is going to happen does not help me at all.

Mr. Eccles: The point is that I do not wish more men to fall out of work because there is no balance between maintenance and new construction, and I think that this new step in freedom will just about preserve the balance.

Mr. Hurd: Can the Minister, who has reached a very sensible decision, tell us if he has formed any estimate of the amount of administrative labour and paper work that will be saved in the offices of builders, local authorities and his own Department, because that is very important?

Mr. Eccles: Savings are bound to be considerable. How they will be distributed between my Department and local authorities remains to be discussed with the local authorities.

Mr. Gibson: May I follow up the point made by my right hon. Friend? If the change in the limit means nothing, why bother with it? If, as the Minister has said, it is intended to absorb something, it can only absorb either labour or materials, or both. If it does that, in view of the fact that there is practically no unemployment in the building industry, will it not inevitably detract from the labour and materials which must be used in the Government's housing programme and in the rather reduced amount of factory building which is being done these days? If that happens, is it not a bad thing for the economy of this country?

Mr. Eccles: The change means that we can get rid of an apparatus of control without injuring the building industry. The hon. Gentleman, I am sorry to say, is not quite right about unemployment in the building industry. It is showing signs of increasing, and precisely in this field of maintenance and repair. If we are to get the maximum amount of productivity in this industry, then all sections of the industry must have the prospect of sufficient work.

Mr. Nabarro: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the very substantial increase in the licence-free limit on industrial buildings, may I ask him to bear in mind that the controlling factor in these matters today is the fact that industry is paying 70 per cent. of its gross profits in taxation, and that out of the slender resources then available industry will not


Spend one penny on putting down an unnecessary brick at any time, even if we take off the limit altogether?

Mr. Mikardo: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nothing infuriates a family who has been waiting years for a house so much as to see luxury decorating and alterations being done in cinemas, public houses and departmental stores? Will he bear that factor in mind in any future changes that he may make?

Mr. Eccles: I am quite certain that the building industry is not like a factory. It is not possible to shut down one section of the industry and expect the other parts of the industry to continue a high rate of productivity. If we were to allow the small builder, who is so largely engaged on maintenance and repairs and who trains apprentices, to fall out of work, we should damage the rate of house building and of all new construction.

Mr. Hoy: Is the Minister not aware that he could best help the painting trade over the winter months if he could get his right hon. Friends the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland to withdraw their orders to schools to cut down on maintenance painting work?

Mr. Eccles: My right hon. Friends have encouraged local authorities to do as much work as they can in the winter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not in Scotland."] I will look into the position in Scotland, but the difficulty is that it is not so easy to do the work in the Christmas holidays as it is to do it in the summer holidays.

Mr. Hoy: Is the Minister not aware that instructions were sent out by the Secretary of State for Scotland to education authorities to cut down on this requirement and that it has resulted in unemployment?

Mr. Eccles: I will look into that point with my right hon. Friend.

TRANSPORT (INCREASED CHARGES)

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make the following statement about British Transport Commission freight charges.
An increase of 10 per cent. in the railway freight, dock and canal charges of the British Transport Commission was made with my predecessor's authority under Section 82 of the Transport Act on 31st December, 1951. During 1952, increases were made in the London passenger fares and in railway passenger fares outside London under the authority of a charges scheme confirmed by the Transport Tribunal, and in the fares of bus companies owned by the Commission with the authority of the licensing authorities. A memorandum submitted to me by the Commission shows that in addition to other substantial increases in costs, some of which result from wage increases in other industries, the recent wage award would add about £18 million in a full year to the Commission's expenses.
In these circumstances, the Commission applied for my authority to increase by 5 per cent. their railway freight, dock and canal charges. As required by Section 82 of the Transport Act, 1947, I sought the advice of the permanent members of the Transport Tribunal, acting as a Consultative Committee. I have now received that advice, a copy of which will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The Consultative Committee find that unless charges are increased, the Commission will incur a deficit of between £20 million and £22 million in a full year, and they advise that immediate measures be taken to enable the Commission to obtain additional revenue of this order. The Consultative Committee also say that an increase of 5 per cent. in railway freight, dock and canal charges would produce about £12 million a year and a further £2½ million a year would be produced by a 5 per cent. increase in road haulage rates which the Commission have power to make and which they would propose to make at the same time.
In the memorandum submitted to me, the Commission indicated that the whole question of passenger fares will be brought under review. Any increase in the maximum charges laid down in the


charges scheme now in force would require the prior approval of the Transport Tribunal, while any increase in the fares charged by the bus companies owned by the Commission would require the prior approval of the licensing authorities concerned. The Consultative Committee do not, therefore, express any opinion as to the amount of additional revenue which may be obtained from these two sources, and have disregarded the possibility that the Commission might at some future date obtain further revenue from these sources.
The Consultative Committee, therefore, advise that the only measures immediately available which would meet the position are an increase of 7½ per cent. in railway freight, dock and canal charges, coupled with a similar and simultaneous increase in the Commission's road haulage rates; that the additional revenue of £12 million a year which would be produced by an increase of 5 per cent. in railway freight, dock and canal charges is the minimum contribution which can be required of these services.
I have decided to adopt the figure for which the Commission have asked and to make regulations under Section 82 of the Transport Act authorising an increase of 5 per cent. in the Commission's railway freight, dock and canal charges, as from 1st December, 1952. It will be open to the British Transport Commission to apply to the Transport Tribunal for an alteration of the existing Passenger Charges Scheme. The earliest date on which such applications could be made are 2nd March next, in the case of London, and 1st May next, in the case of railways outside of the London area. These dates are in each case 12 months after the coming into force of the London and Provincial sections of the present Scheme.

Mr. Barnes: May I express my appreciation of the Minister's decision to make this statement even while we are considering the Transport Bill?
There are one or two points that I should like to put to him. Can he indicate how much of this accumulated loss of £20 million to £22 million was caused by the decision of the Government when they interfered with the transport charges in the spring of this year? Secondly, I notice that the Minister states that £2½ million will be produced by a 5 per cent.

increase in road haulage rates, and that the Commission have power to make this increase and propose to do so.
It seems strange that at this period when the Commission so much needs this amount, the Government are proposing to take the road haulage undertakings from them. Will they, in fact, get this £2½ million that is referred to in the Minister's statement? Finally, what guarantee have we that if we approve of this the Prime Minister will not intervene and upset the apple-cart?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If I have got those three questions right, I should like to start by replying to the last one. The intervention by the Government earlier in the year—[HON. MEMBERS: "By the Prime Minister."]—by the Government earlier in the year was solely due to the use by the Commission of the discretion—[Interruption.] Do hon. Members opposite want to hear an answer or not? This question is of immense importance to the trading community. The Commission were limited to the use of the discretion given to them by the Transport Tribunal, and on that single issue alone a perfectly proper Government intervention took place.
In regard to the second question asked by the right hon. Gentleman it is unfortunately true, as I pointed out in the debate last night, that during this coming year it is very unlikely that the road haulage services of the Commission will in fact be adding to the net profits of the Commission.
In regard to the first question, these increased costs are caused solely—as the communications from the Commission to me have shown—by the following extra charges: £5 million more on their coal bill—of which a large part is due to increased wages—£2½ million on steel: £5½ million on fuel duty; £1.3 million on National Insurance and £18 million on the recent wage awards to their own employees.

Mr. Maclay: Will the Minister look into a point which emerged in December last year, when there was an increase in the charges of 10 per cent. At that time it was found possible to limit the increase to a maximum of 10s. a ton in the interests of long-distance traffic—above all in Scotland. With regard to the present increase of 5 per cent. will my right hon.


Friend examine the possibility of limiting the increase, possibly to 5s. per ton, for the same reason—to give the maximum protection to long-distance traffic particularly to Scotland?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I know that my right hon. Friend, as much as anybody else, appreciates that these are recommendations made to the Tribunal and by the Tribunal to me. Though in December, 1951, the Commission proposed to the Tribunal and the Tribunal accepted that with a 10 per cent. increase there should be a limitation to 10s. per ton, in this case they made no such recommendation. But the most careful research into this most important point has shown—it is rather a complicated mathematical formula—that the benefit of the previous taper as applied to long journeys to Scotland has also increased by 5 per cent. and this is an automatic follow up of the decision reached quite rightly in December last year.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Does not this statement by the Minister add considerable point to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) yesterday, that before we tinker with the British Transport Commission there should be a full inquiry, in view of the effect of the proposed Bill on the finances of the Transport Commission? Will the Minister take the advice of his hon. Friend?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That does not follow in the least. The major cause of this regrettable increase in freight rates is the £18 million which has been added to the wage bill. I take it that no one in this House is going to quarrel with the decision already reached.

Captain Robert Ryder: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that when freight rates are increased, it has the effect of subsidising the passenger rates in the country as a whole, but as far as London is concerned, any increase in working costs has to be borne by the passengers?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I recognise that fact, and I have brought in a special reference to the possible consequence on passengers.

Mr. Speaker: These general considerations could well be raised on the first Order of the Day.

Following is the copy of the advice of the Consultative Committee:

1. By a letter dated the 29th October you ask for our advice on a request made by the British Transport Commission that they should be authorised under section 82 of the Transport Act, 1947, to increase by 5 per cent. the railway, dock and canal freight rates and charges now in operation. The estimates in the memorandum submitted by the Commission, copies of which accompanied your letter, were directed to showing (1) that owing mainly to the recent wage increases the activities of the Commission as a whole would, if they were unable to increase their revenue, result in a full year in a deficit of about £21 million and (2) that the particular increases in their charges for which authority was sought would in a full year produce about £12 million additional revenue.
2. It will be remembered that when our advice was sought in November, 1951, upon a proposal of this kind we were nearing the end of a prolonged public inquiry and that the advice we then gave was based on the conclusions we had formed as to the probable financial results of the Commission's activities during 1952. It seemed to us that our consideration of the Commission's present memorandum would be assisted if the figures contained in it were expanded in such a way as would enable us to compare the estimate we had made at the end of 1951 with the facts revealed by the actual working of the Commission during 1952.

We have accordingly obtained from the Commission a detailed analysis of the "Estimate of financial results for a 'future year'" attached to their memorandum which has enabled us to compare this estimate with that upon which the advice we gave on that occasion was based.

3. The conclusions we have reached as a result of our examination of the material available to us are as follows:—

(1) that if it had not been for the recent increases in wages the accounts of the Commission for 1952 would have shown a surplus of about £1½ million;
(2) that owing to these increases there will instead, if no corrective measures are taken, be a deficit of about £2½ million;
(3) that in a full year the effect of these increases alone will be to increase the working expenses of the Commission by about £17.8 million;
(4) that the recent issue of £120 million of Transport Stock will result in a full year in an addition to the "Central Charges" of the Commission of over £4 million;
(5) that it would be imprudent to expect any increase in the volume of the traffic from which the revenues of the British Railways and the Docks and Canals sections of the Commission's undertaking are drawn;
(6) that because of the increase in their wage costs and in the cost of servicing the Transport Stock, referred to in sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) above, the Commission's activities will in a full year if their charges are not increased result in a deficit of between £20 million and £22 million;


(7) that an increase of 5 per cent. in the railway, dock and canal freight rates and charges would in a full year produce additional revenue of the order of £12 million;
(8) that such an increase in the revenue drawn from the British Railways, Docks and Canals would represent about 80 per cent. of so much of the increase in costs referred to in sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) as could reasonably be regarded as chargeable against these sections of the Commission's undertaking.

4. We note from the Commission's memorandum that if they are authorised to increase the railway, dock and canal freight rates and charges by 5 per cent. they intend to increase road haulage rates simultaneously by the same percentage and that they hope thereby to obtain additional revenue of about £2½ million per annum.

5. The only other services which contribute substantial sums to the Commission's revenue are (1) the passenger services of British Railways and London Transport, and (2) the Provincial and Scottish road passenger services.

We do not think it would be right for us to discuss the possibility of obtaining additional revenue from the first of these two groups of services, or that any such discussion, if justifiable, could lead to any conclusion which would throw any light on the question how best to alleviate or remove the immediate financial difficulties of the Commission. No substantial additional revenue can be obtained unless the Charges Scheme confirmed by us on the 27th February last is modified and this Scheme can only be modified if, after hearing all qualified objectors at another public inquiry, we decide that it ought to be modified. It would plainly be improper for us acting as a Consultative Committee to prejudge in any way an issue determinable by us only when sitting in our normal capacity as a Tribunal.

The same primary objection stands in the way of any discussion of the possibility of obtaining any additional revenue from the second of the two groups. No alteration can be made in the fares charged by the services in question without the prior approval of the local Licensing Authorities concerned. We cannot properly take upon ourselves a task which Parliament has imposed on other bodies. Nor could we in fact, even if it were proper for us to attempt to do so, form any useful opinion upon the extent to which these other bodies might be found willing to authorise any increase in the fares at present charged, or as to the aggregate additional revenue which those hypothetical increases might be expected to produce, or as to the time at which any such additional revenue might become available.

We have accordingly, in considering what advice we should tender, neglected the possibility that the Commission might at some future date obtain some further revenue from these two sources.

6. The advice we tender is, for the reasons which, we hope, are sufficiently indicated in the foregoing paragraphs, as follows:—

(1) that it is desirable that immediate measures be taken to enable the Commis-

sion to obtain additional revenue of the order of £20 million to £22 million per annum;
(2) that the only measures immediately available whereby additional revenue of this order of magnitude could be obtained are:—

(a) an increase of 7½ per cent. in the railway, dock and canal freight rates and charges, coupled with
(b) a similar and simultaneous increase in the Commission's road haulage rates;

(3) that the additional revenue (£12 million per annum) obtainable by the measure proposed by the Commission, namely an increase of 5 per cent. in the railway, dock and canal freight rates and charges, is the minimum contribution which can be required of these services towards the relief of the Commission's immediate financial difficulties

(Sgd.) HUBERT HULL.

(Sgd.) A. E. SEWELL.

(Sgd.) J. C. POOLE.

13th November, 1952.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Attlee: Has the Leader of the House any statement to make with regard to the alteration of business this week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): As the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution are being taken tonight, it will be too soon to take the Committee stage of the Bill tomorrow; otherwise the business tomorrow will be as already announced, except that the Second Reading of the Civil Contingencies Fund Bill and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution will be taken instead of the Committee stage of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day. Order. Mr. Macmillan.

BILL PRESENTED

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

"to abolish development charges under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, subject to certain savings and special provisions; to provide, subject to certain savings and special provisions, that the payments required by sections fifty-eight and fifty-five of those Acts respectively shall not be made and to make certain provision as to claims for and rights to receive such


payments; to make provision as to the acquisition of land by the Central Land Board under sections forty-three and forty of those Acts respectively; to revoke Regulation 6 of the Town and Country Planning (Modification of Mines Act) Regulations, 1948, and Regulation 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Modification of Mines Act) (Scotland) Regulations, 1948; to suspend the operation of section thirty of the Mineral Workings Act, 1951; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. H. Macmillan; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. J. Stuart and Mr. Marples; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 9.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Proceedings of the Committee on Transport [Money], on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and of the Committee on Expiring Laws Continuance [Money] be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Mr. H. Morrison: On a point of order. This seems to be rather serious, Mr. Speaker. You called from the Chair: "The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day." Apparently the Government had failed to move the suspension of the Rule, and I submit that it would be quite unfair to the House to permit them to do so now.

Mr. Speaker: Before the Orders of the Day had in fact been read I recollected myself, and realised that these items were to be taken.

The Prime Minister: My action was correct, but the range was unduly short.

Mr. Morrison: The point I am making is that I very distinctly heard, as did everybody in the House—and that is one thing we can say about our Speaker, that he has a very clear voice—"The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day." My submission is that when

that is done, it is too late for the Motion for the suspension to be nodded, moved or dealt with.

Mr. Speaker: I admit—and I have never denied—that I did ask the Clerk in error to read the Orders of the Day before these other items were taken, but luckily I recollected myself before the Orders of the Day were actually read; so the House is not yet on the Orders of the Day. Having done that before irreparable damage was done, I ask the House to excuse my first slip and to allow us to proceed.

Mr. Morrison: I am sorry to be persistent. According to our recollection and our hearing, the Town and Country Planning Bill was called and was presented by the Minister. Therefore business was transacted. I submit that my former point is in itself pretty conclusive, but this surely adds to it—that the Minister gave the nod and the Bill was presented. I submit that it is now too late to proceed with the suspension of the Rule.

Mr. Speaker: I rule against that. I did call the Minister to present the Town and Country Planning Bill and he duly did so. That having been done, we had not entered upon the Orders of the Day, and therefore it was still open to me to call the Prime Minister to move his Motion, which be has done.

Mr. Mikardo: Further to that point of order. At the moment when you did eventually call the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, he was walking down the aisle towards the exit. Indeed, he had almost reached your Chair. Is it in order for an hon. Member—or even a right hon. Member—to move a Motion when he is in the process of perambulation?

Mr. Speaker: That raises another matter. It is a settled practice that one Member of the Government can move a Motion for another.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes. 266; Noes, 218.

Division No. 3.]
AYES
[4.0 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Mellor, Sir John


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Molson, A. H. E.


Alport C. J. M.
Godber, J. B.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Gough, C. F. H.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Arbuthnot, John
Gower, H. R.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Nicholls, Harmar


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Nicholson, Godfrey (Fareham)


Baker, P. A. D.
Grimond, J.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Banks, Col. C.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Barber, Anthony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Barlow, Sir John
Harden, J. R. E.
Oakshott, H. D.


Baxter, A. B.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Odey, G. W.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Harris, Reader (Heston)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Osborne, C.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Partridge, E.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Heald, Sir Lionel
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Heath, Edward
Perkins, W. R. D.


Birch, Nigel
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Black, C. W.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Powell, J. Enoch


Braine, B. R.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Holt, A. F.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Profumo, J. D.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Raikes, H. V.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Redmayne, M.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Bullard, D. G.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Renton, D. L. M.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hurd, A. R.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Burden, F. F. A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Robertson, Sir David


Butcher, H. W.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Campbell, Sir David
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Robson-Brown, W.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Carson, Hon. E.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Roper, Sir Harold


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Channon, H.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Russell, R. S.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Kaberry, D.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Cole, Norman
Lambton, Viscount
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Colegate, W. A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Scott, R. Donald


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Shepherd, William


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Leather E. H. C.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Crouch, R. F.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Linstead, H. N.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Llewellyn, D. T.
Snadden, W. McN.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Soames, Capt. C.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Deedes, W. F.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Speir, R. M.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Donner, P. W.




Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
McAdden, S. J.
Stevens, G. P.


Drayson, G. B.
McCallum, Major D.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Duthie, W. S.
McKibbin, A. J.
Storey, S.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Erroll, F. J.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Studholme, H. G.


Fell, A.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Summers, G. S.


Finlay, Graeme
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Sutcliffe, H.


Fisher, Nigel
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Markham, Major S. F.
Teeling, W.


Foster, John
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Marples, A. E.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Maude, Angus
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Galbraith Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Maudling, R.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Turner, H. F. L.







Turton, R. H.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Tweedsmuir, Lady
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Vane, W. M. F.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Wills, G.


Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Watkinson, H. A.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Vosper, D. F.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)
Wood, Hon. R.


Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
White, Baker (Canterbury)



Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Pargiter, G. A.


Albu, A. H.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley
Paton, J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Pearson, A.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Hamilton, W. W.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hannan, W.
Poole, C. C.


Awbery, S. S.
Hardy, E. A.
Porter, G.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hargreaves, A.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Balfour, A.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Proctor, W. T.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Hayman, F. H.
Rankin, John


Beattle, J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Reeves, J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon F. J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Bence, C. R.
Hobson, C. R.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Benn, Wedgwood
Holman, P.
Rhodes, H.


Benson, G.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Beswick, F.
Hoy, J. H.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hubbard, T. F.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Blackburn, F.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Ross, William


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N)
Royle, C.


Boardman, H.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Bowden, H. W.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Bowles, F. G.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brockway, A. F.
Jay Rt. Hon D. P. T.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Jeger, George (Gocle)
Slater, J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Snow, J. W.


Burke, W. A.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Sorensen, R. W.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Sparks, J. A.


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Steele, T.


Carmichael, J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Keenan, W.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Champion, A. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
King, Dr. H. M.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Clunie, J.
Kirley, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Coldrick, W.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Swingler, S. T.


Collick, P. H.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Sylvester, G. O.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lewis, Arthur
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lindgren, G S.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lipton Lt.-Col. M.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Daines, P.
McGhee, H. G.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McInnes, J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
McLeavy, F.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Timmons, J.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tomney, F.


Deer, G.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Viant, S. P.


Delargy, H. J.
Manuel, A. C.
Wallace, H. W.


Dodds, N. N.




Donnelly, D. L.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Watkins, T. E.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mellish, R. J.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mikardo, Ian
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Edelman, M.
Mitchison, G. R.
West, D. G.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Monslow, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Moody, A. S.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Morley, R.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Fernyhough, E.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Field, W. J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wigg, George


Finch, H. J.
Moyle, A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Murray, J. D.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Follick, M.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Foot, M. M.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Forman, J. C.
Oldfield, W. H.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Oliver, G. H.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Orbach, M.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gibson, C. W.
Oswald, T.
Yates, V. F.


Glanville, James
Padley, W. E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Gooch, E. G.
Paget, R. T.



Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Mr. Popplewell and


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Mr. Kenneth Robinson


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pannell, Charles

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [17th November], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Barnes: I beg to move, To leave out "now," and at the end of the Question to add: "upon this day six months."
The Amendment calls for the total rejection of the Bill, because I do not see much really to commend the Bill to the House. Probably the Government will force some kind of Measure through the House, but I would express the hope that the common sense of the House will at least delete the forced sale of British Road Services, which inevitably means the unnecessary loss of £20 million and the consequence of which is to impose what I consider to be a penal tax upon a limited body of citizens in this country. The issue is whether a forced sale is necessary, and I am confident that, as the Second Reading debate proceeds, as well as in Committee, it will become increasingly plain that, whatever the merits or the demerits of the Government's purpose may be, there is no justification for the method that they are adopting.
But before I proceed to discuss the main problem, I want to offer one or two comments upon some of the passages in the Minister's speech. I observed that the Minister paid very deserved tributes to the late directors of the four main-line railway companies. Of course, we all appreciate that at least a good proportion of them were men with wide business experience.
It appeared to me to be rather strange that the Minister should devote so much time to the value of their contributions when we find the Government paying so little attention to one of the outstanding directors of the four main-line railways who is also a respected Member of this House. I refer, of course, to the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). I know that his family connections with the railways, his personal connection with the railways, his prestige

in this House in all quarters, are not in question. One would have thought that a Minister who thinks it desirable to pay a tribute to those past directors would not ignore the advice of one who is very qualified to speak.
The second point I want to comment upon is the Minister's statement with regard to my own and the late Government's attitude to the area passenger transport schemes and the Road Passenger Executive, because I think it is desirable to correct what may be a misunderstanding. It would be quite wrong for the Minister to infer that I had abandoned the area passenger schemes. He mentioned three—the North-Eastern, the South-Western and the East Anglian schemes. The South-Western and the East Anglian schemes have never reached a stage to come before the Minister, but I see no reason to avoid the fact that in the case of the North-Eastern area scheme I was not disposed unduly to hurry forward. That was an entirely different situation from abandoning the scheme-making procedure.
I would remind hon. Members that the whole principle and basis of the area making schemes was that they should be of a permissive, voluntary and consenting character. There was no principle of compulsion embodied in the formation of those schemes. They were quite clearly designed to enable public opinion, both before and otherwise, in any given area, when it was so disposed, to proceed on lines either similar to or very dissimilar from what was done in the case of London transport. There was complete absence of any authoritarian pressure in the formation of those schemes.
An amount of opposition, I could see, prevailed in the North-Eastern area, largely organised and directed by British Electric Traction—B.E.T. as they are familiarly known. They organised a good deal of objection. It is not unusual in this country when one is looking forward to the development of a policy to give the necessary time for information and knowledge on some of these complex matters to spread.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Of course, I inherited the situation; I have to rely on the records that are available; but when I looked at what was done in fact in connection with the Northern area scheme, I could not


fail to see that Gateshead, South Shields, Sunderland and Stockton-on-Tees, which all had absolute Labour majorities over all other parties combined, objected to the scheme.

Mr. Barnes: Yes. I am not in any way disputing those facts. I thought I was acknowledging that the opposition I found at that particular time was of a character that did not justify pressing on with that scheme, and as the whole thing was permissive in principle, I was quite prepared to wait until knowledge and information eventually soaked into elements of that description and brought about a change in the attitude towards the problem. That was one of the reasons that caused me to form the view that the Road Passenger Executive had been formed too quickly.
I must confess that my own personal desire was that that area scheme should have marched forward with greater rapidity, and should have won a larger measure of public support; and it was in anticipation that that might be the position that I formed the Road Passenger Executive, to have it ready; but the very fact that, when I found the circumstances were not working in that direction, I formed the decision to abolish the Road Passenger Executive proves the point which I have often made in our debates that the whole machinery of executive control was flexible and adjustable to meet changing circumstances. After the experience of the North-Eastern area, the South-Western and East Anglian schemes were proceeding on a different plan, and I believe that with a modified type of scheme something might have materialised.
I do not agree that the Minister has any case for now compulsorily repealing these Sections of the Act, especially in regard to the problems of railway organisation. Under this Bill, the railways, against their own practical experience and judgment, are to be compelled to change to a regional or area type of organisation. The Government are forcing the abolition of the Railway Executive, whether it is right or wrong, or whether it is justified or not, and I think that the weight of opinion is against it.
Nevertheless, the Government are compelling that change, and, while intro-

ducing the principle of compulsion with regard to railway organisation, they are repealing even the permissive area scheme machinery which would enable localities, when public opinion was ripe, to move in the direction for which, as I understood it, the hon. Member for Abingdon was pleading yesterday. He argued that, approaching the problem of transport seriously, the time has now arrived when we should cease to discuss it in terms of railways and roads. In all the debates we have had in this House, we have found a certain antagonism running through the arguments of hon. Members. We should now think in terms of transport, as the hon. Baronet emphasised, with a big "T."
The reason I emphasise that is that my association with this problem convinced me very rapidly that we have too much capital resources, too much mechanical plant and equipment, and too much of our labour resources invested in the whole field of transport. I became convinced that, on a proper and serious practical approach to this problem, favouring neither rail nor road, but understanding the problem which confronts each aspect of transport, there were considerable economies which could not be won in a year or two years, but which could be obtained in our use of resources in transport. It is very serious that about 14 per cent. of our national capital resources should be absorbed in transport of all kinds. Apart from our civil and general engineering trades, transport is the largest user of our labour supplies, and today we cannot afford to continue with that state of affairs.
If we follow the policy the Government have embodied in this Bill, I see not a steady spreading and development of economies, but spreading chaos and waste, and it is from that point of view that I approach the problem.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: If the right hon. Gentleman considers that 14 per cent. is a disproportionate amount of national resources to be devoted to transport, would he give us the appropriate figure for the United States, Germany and other foreign countries to prove his point?

Mr. Barnes: I am not in the least interested in other countries. What I am interested in is seeeing this country use its resources as efficiently as possible. I


think the hon. Gentleman's intervention was merely a diversion. We are not like other countries. No other country has to live by importing its food supplies and raw materials to the extent that we do, and it is not a bit of use comparing our problems with those of America, or any other country which has large land areas and all its raw materials at home. We have special problems, and the point I am making is the necessity to economise in our resources.

Mr. Nabarro: But what is the yardstick?

Mr. Barnes: The yardstick is common sense, of which the hon. Gentleman is apparently devoid.

Mr. Nabarro: Idle speculation.

Mr. Barnes: I wish to address a serious argument to the House and I do not intend to be diverted.
What impresses me, as one who has seen a good many Government Measures of a controversial character introduced and passed, is the very little really effective support in the country for this Bill. Whenever a Government introduces a controversial Measure, it is customary for their own supporters, Press and journals to do what they can to justify it. We are all familiar with that process. But in this case we cannot find written and detailed evidence of that kind. We can only form impressions through observation. All the men engaged in running transport have, through their official organisations and journals, expressed an opinion against the proposals of the Bill. I find that a very large proportion of managerial opinion in the transport industry is against the Bill.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: No.

Mr. Barnes: Yes. We can have our differences of opinion about it, but I have never come across any other instance in which one could so easily detect a volume of management opinion which voiced its objection or doubt as that in the transport industry has been voiced against these proposals. The technical transport journals do not usually make comments or express their views inspired by a party political point of view, but I find that generally the transport journals have viewed these proposals of the Government as reversing the trend which has been

developing in industry in the first half of this century.
When the White Paper was before us, we had the remarkable spectacle of the majority of Conservative journals invariably commenting adversely on the Government's proposals. Then on the eve of this Bill we had the Association of British Chambers of Commerce circulating their document, which, whilst agreeing with the general objective which the Government had in view, nevertheless wanted such substantial variations in the procedure and method as would effectively destroy the Bill. The roads federation which speaks for all commercial road interests is fiercely opposed to the levy. Despite all this, we find the Government endeavouring to force this Bill through.
I want to refer to one of the suggestions of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce which, I think, was supported by the hon. Member for Abingdon yesterday—that the Government, if they were intending to move in this direction, should at least have had an inquiry. I think that is justified now, and I want to comment on my attitude to the question of an inquiry when this problem was last debated, and when I was Minister of Transport.
Then the official Opposition, now the Government, put forward as their main constructive proposal that there should be an inquiry into the problems of transport. I think that the Home Secretary, who, I understand, is to wind up the debate tonight, was the chief exponent of that proposal, and he pressed it upon me very strongly indeed. I was not proposing to upset the general scheme of transport at that time, so I rejected the demand for an inquiry by the then Opposition; but I did not reject the case and a good deal of the criticism that was behind the demand for an inquiry.
What I did was this: I called the President of the Federation of British Industries, Sir Archibald Forbes, and the Chairman of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, Mr. Yates, together, and asked them to meet me, with the Chairmen of the British Transport Commission, the Railway Executive and the Road Haulage Executive. My view at that time was that the Road Haulage Executive had passed through a process


of acquiring something like 3,000 separate undertakings of all sizes and conditions—small, medium and large; well-organised road haulage businesses, medium-sized businesses, some indifferently organised and some very badly organised. They were faced with the problem of welding over 3,000 separate businesses into the network of a national road haulage service. Before that new economic force rooted itself down, I wanted contact between the spokesmen of industry, who could speak for a wide range of traders, to meet the Chairmen of the various Executives; and in a practical way we discussed the details, the structure and the type of road haulage organisation which would evolve.
I want to emphasise that at that time I did not reject the under-current of criticism, but I thought that a wide, roving inquiry was not suitable, and certainly not so effective, as bringing the practical men on either side together to work out a plan. The reports which I received were that these meetings were proceeding in a very valuable and favourable way, and I think that if that idea had been proceeded with, we should possibly have accomplished a good deal. That, so far as I can see, has come to an end. Now the Government propose to take us back to the chaos which we found in the inter-war years, the ruinous competition between road and rail transport—a most regrettable state of affairs.
That being the case, it is not now a matter of improving the machinery of the British Transport Commission in a businesslike and practical way; it is a reversal of that policy. It throws us back to a condition of affairs which all practical, expert opinion had condemned in the past—Royal Commissions, conferences, trade experts, transport experts, and almost every Minister of Transport, including the war-time Minister, Lord Leathers. All had come to the conclusion that a desirable feature of our transport policy would be to knit together, in some form or other, road and rail transport, under conditions in which the user, whether he was a passenger or a trader, could determine where the flow of capital should go.
There were precedents for this. It is of no use Lord Leathers stating that the Transport Act was doctrinaire, rigid and

ideological in its character; it was nothing of the kind. As a matter of fact, every party has played its part in this direction. In the Labour Governments of 1929 and 1931, there was a Bill in preparation to bring about that state of affairs in London Transport, because we found then that the pirate buses were creaming off the short-distance routes in London and driving the General Omnibus Company—a capitalist concern of which Lord Ashfield was chairman, with a capital involving nearly £100 million—the London County Council, the West Ham and East Ham and the Croydon Corporations straight into the bankruptcy court.
The Conservative Government came along in 1931, and they could not evade a situation of that character. They picked up that Bill, which was being prepared by the Labour Government of that period, and, with one or two minor alterations, the London Passenger Transport Board was brought into being. Who can say that the London Passenger Transport Board has been a failure or a wrong type of experiment? Who can say that it has interfered with the principal of choice of the citizens of London? It has done nothing of the kind. The citizens can choose whether they go on a bus, a tube or on what other form of transport is provided. Because the resources were pooled, capital has flowed in the direction which has suited the general convenience of the public.
In my view, what the 1947 Transport Act sought to do was to make that kind of thing possible throughout the country. It is no use anyone saying that the Transport Act was rigid or ideological in its conception. A series of principles were applied. In the first place, shipping was left entirely outside the problem. If we look at the treatment of the railways, road haulage and road passenger services, we see that every phase of transport was treated by a different method.
In the case of road haulage, which was eventually partially brought in the scheme, there was, first of all, the special treatment, procedure and method which selected the type of vehicles which were engaged in long-distance goods transport, and there was a different method which selected the local operator who should be brought into that scheme. There was the exempted traffic of special kinds of road hauliers which was not suitable to be governed by or which could not be


dovetailed into any co-ordination between road and rail, and there was the permitted traffic. On the road haulage side, we had four different methods and principles applied.
I notice that whereas Lord Leathers has stated that it was a rigid scheme and the whole power of public transport was massed into one central organisation, the Minister of Transport has said that one of the reasons the Government are going to force the regional scheme on the railways is that the British Transport Commission have delegated too much power to the Railway Executive. It is no use two Minister in the same Department facing the public of this country and Parliament with contradictory statements of that kind.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to me. I certainly did not say that the Commission had given too much power to the Executive. I said that the central organisation, the Commission and the Executive had not given enough power to the regions.

Mr. Barnes: That shows that the Minister is wrong. In answer to a question, he stated that the scheme of delegation gave too much power to the Railway Executive. Now he is attempting to wriggle from that. He has said that we are not giving sufficient power to the regions.

Mr. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman quote it?

Mr. Barnes: What was said was:
The main grounds for the Government's conclusion that the administration of the railways has become excessively centralised under the Transport Act, 1947, are the extent of the functions vested in the Railway Executive by the scheme of delegation made by the British Transport Commission under Section 5 of that Act. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1952; Vol. 501, c. 10.]
My contention is that we have two Ministers who are both involved in the problem at the moment and one of them states that the defect of the Transport Act was the vesting of all this power in the British Transport Commission and then the other Minister comes to the House and states that the situation is entirely different.
Let us take the issue with which the Minister now tries to explain away the contradiction, that not sufficient authority

was given to the regions. In their scheme of re-organisation, the Railway Executive created the regions. We brought together four main-line railways, with their different methods, different administrations, a great variety of locomotives, different signalling systems and matters of that kind. I put it to any hon. Member who has ever had to handle the amalgamation of a great number of varied undertakings—I have had that experience—that in the first phase of that type of re-organisation one cannot avoid taking authority into the central administration. In changing from a system employing 400 different types of locomotives in pursuit of economies resulting from standardisation and the use of only 10, 20 or 30 types, one cannot avoid the use of central authority until such standardisation has been effected.
What is the advantage of bringing together bodies of this kind if it is not to examine each administrative method in order to pick out the best? If that is not done, there is no point at all in bringing together a series of different elements in industry or commerce. Thus, in the first few years of the operation of the Transport Act it was essential that the central authority should possess all the knowledge which existed in the four main-line railways until the policy of standardisation and integration of stock, control and matters of that kind had been carried through. Thereafter the process of de-centralisation takes place.
The Railway Executive and the British Transport Commission had created the regions and the Transport Act visualised, with the area schemes, the knitting together of the regions, and it was by that process that we should have reached the goal about which the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon spoke yesterday. Yet it is now proposed that all that should be scrapped.
Today we have had from the Minister of Transport a statement which should emphasise to all of us how dangerous it is at this stage to lay railway finance open to the type of competition which produced from the railway directors, whom the right hon. Gentleman eulogised in his statement, their complaints and their demand for the "square deal" in the inter-war years. The House of Commons, all Governments and all parties since 1939 have not played the game with the rail-


ways. In the national interest, the physical assets of the railways were exhausted to an extent to which no other business or industry in the country was exhausted. The Exchequer made a surplus of £190 million out of our railways during the war years.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Why did not the Labour Government do something about it?

Mr. Barnes: We did something about it. We did the obvious thing about it. In 1947 the railways lost £60 million. They failed to meet their operating expenses by £16 million, and, with the £43,500,000 interest which the Government had guaranteed to the railway companies, the total loss was £60 million. If any business undertaking in this country can lose £60 million in a year owing to a certain set of circumstances, it should cause every hon. Member to think twice before creating conditions which may reproduce that situation.
The Treasury had to meet the £60 million in 1947, the year before the introduction of the Transport Act, but it still remains that the railways had made a surplus for the country during the war years of £120 million. The noble Lord who was Minister of Transport during that period ought to have ensured that the £120 million became a reserve for the railways to cushion the effect of the postwar period. If there is any indictment which can be levelled in the House tonight, it is against those who were responsible for railway administration in those times. Over and above that, because they were making this surplus, the railways were not permitted to keep their charges level with the increase in costs which was taking place throughout industry generally.
The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) asked me why we did not do something about it. We did something about it. Directly I found myself in charge of the Department, I discovered that the railways had insufficient wagons to carry the goods of this country. Who was responsible for that—the Labour Government, the people who ran the main-line railways and provided the wagons previously, the war-time Government? It was the war-time Government which was responsible for

that situation. Because of the policy of the Transport Act, the deficiency in railway wagons has been rectified and today the railways are able to carry the goods which the traders offer to them.
Does anybody wonder that a body like the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, overwhelmingly Tory in its political convictions, is nevertheless concerned about the policy of a Government which will throw it back to that state of affairs? It has asked for an inquiry, it has asked that the levy should be dropped and it has asked that the sale of operative units should be dropped.
What are the Government proposing to do about the motor industry at the present moment? Who would deny that the motor industry may face difficulties in the near future? Anyway, it is certain that the remarkable period in which the industry has had a sellers' market is likely to end. The motor industry is offering both cars and motor vehicles much more readily than for years past. If the Government act foolishly in such conditions, they may precipitate and add to the difficulties for the industry. To throw 40,000 lorries on the market at bargain prices at this moment might help to push the motor industry into difficulties. Judging by the reactions to the Government's policy in that aspect, hon. Members opposite ought to pause before they make decisions of this kind. Why should 40,000 lorries be sold at 75 per cent. of their price?
I shall not talk about taking over a great number of businesses. We all know what these hauliers' businesses were. Some were very well organised with good maintenance plants and garages, but not all were like that. Some of them were quite small and their maintenance plants were just a few tools and a bench possibly in the corner of the garage. No one knows what the road-worthiness of their vehicles was. The vehicles varied very much. Some were excellent, a good many of them were passable, but a fair proportion of them were not roadworthy.
When Parliament is legislating for the compulsory acquisition of a number of businesses, it cannot be said that though they are functioning badly and are obsolescent, no compensation should be paid. The Transport Act of 1947 had to give individuals and companies a certain amount of compensation even if


their lorries, their garages and plants were inefficient and useless to British Road Services. Those people made a living from those businesses and there was some goodwill. But when British Road Services took them over a lot of these lorries had to be scrapped. A lot of the garages were of no earthly use. Even hon. Members opposite do not dispute that.
In firms like Sainsbury's, Boot's or general stores and multiple stores of that kind, the vehicles are maintained at a very high standard, much better than one would expect in a smaller type of organisation. That is the general rule of business in this country. British Road Services, with their national reputation as a public concern, had to raise the whole standard of their vehicles and concentrate their maintenance organisation in larger plants. That meant expenditure on better equipment. This was additional capital. All this had to be faced in a matter of two years.
The Home Secretary and other hon. Members opposite have argued, "But these hauliers made £10 million profit, whereas you have made only £3 million profit." Is that so unusual in a type of business organisation where re-organisation is taking place and where there is a re-marshalling of capital assets? Of course, it is not. That has been now met. It is out of the way, and we were beginning to see British Road Services getting on to a better footing.
The British Chambers of Commerce, having experienced this network of road haulage services, have told their Tory pals and friends, "Get it back to private enterprise if you can, but for heaven's sake do not destroy the national network of services which we find today." They do not object to the business going back to private enterprise, so that private enterprise can have the advantage of the profit, but they do not want the organisation destroyed. That, in effect, is what is meant by the British Chambers of Commerce in their recent expression of opinion.
From our point of view, and I should have thought from the point of view of every Member of Parliament, our duty is to safeguard the public purse, and if that is the case, as the British Road Services have met this great cost, I put this to the Government: the only figure they are

going to give to the British Transport Commission out of this levy is £1 million for disturbance. Are they paying nothing back in respect of the costs met in 1949, 1950 and 1951 in writing off all that obsolescent plant? I certainly cannot see any figure in this Bill to meet those costs.
No Member of Parliament, in my view, should support any such proposal. I do not believe that this Bill will stand up to discussion in Committee. I do not believe that any Minister of the Crown will be able to defend this forced sale with its consequence of the loss of £20 million worth of property, and which offends against every principle of taxation in this country. I want the Government to quote me any precedent where, through a deliberate act of the Government of the day, a loss is incurred to the Exchequer and a small body of citizens are made to carry that result of Government policy. In my view, that is outrageous, preposterous and indefensible, and I hope that every trade in the country will convey to Conservative Members its opposition and detestation of that principle.

4.56 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) invariably makes a constructive and objective contribution to our discussions. We all recollect how, when he was engaged in piloting through the House his own Measure, which we at the time opposed strongly, he was always an extremely courteous Minister, and his remarks today have maintained the high level of that controversy. I shall do my best to maintain that standard in the observations I have to make.
I have a dual function to perform this afternoon without, I hope, detaining the House over long in view of the large number of hon. Members who are desirous of speaking. I must, however, make some reference to yesterday's proceedings and enlarge on some points which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport was debarred from mentioning yesterday by reason of the shortage of time.
The first impression which will occur to many who were here yesterday was that not for the first time the prophets were falsified. The Press predicted almost unanimously that our Second Reading


debate would produce the most bitter controversy of the post-war era, that the Government and Opposition would be at one another's throats, that there would be thunder and lightning with the Floor of the House becoming something in the nature of a "blasted heath." [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] I said a "blasted heath." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is a quotation from "Macbeth." In fact, we have had a remarkably good-tempered debate and that, in my opinion, was due to the character of the opening speeches.
My right hon. Friend in a most lucid exposition of the Bill, showed himself to be a master of his subject, and I feel sure that hon. Members would wish to congratulate him not only on the high quality of his speech yesterday, but wish him many happy returns of today. It would, moreover, be churlish not to acknowledge the services rendered to the Government by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). If I may say so, he gave us on this side of the House the impression of having lost a good deal of his interest in transport problems, and of retreating in a dignified manner across the river to his old love at County Hall. There was more L.C.C. than B.T.C. in some of his observations.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: This is childish business that the hon. Gentleman has learned from some of the back benchers who come from the Conservative Central Office. I did not start talking of the L.C.C. It was the Prime Minister who first mentioned the London County Council. Why does the hon. Gentleman want to indulge in this silly stuff? I thought he said at the beginning of his speech that he was going to keep it at as high a level as that of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Braithwaite: I said I would deal with yesterday's proceedings. I repeat that the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South did give us the impression that he was concentrating more on the London County Council than on the British Transport Commission. I think there was reason for it. He gave us the reason for it. His thoughts were elsewhere, concentrating on the problem of opposition to his authority, and he reached the stage of opposing himself.
I am now going to quote from two adjacent sentences in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. This is what he said in the first of them:
The Minister does not want to comment and, therefore, I can take it that the policy of the Government is to stimulate by legislation, by deliberate policy, even artificially if they can, the maximum practicable degree of competition. That is to say, they want what we call cut-throat competition within the transport industry.
Now I read from the next column where, a minute or two later, the right hon. Gentleman was referring to certain publicly-owned concerns in which the B.T.C. has had a considerable interest and, speaking of my right hon. Friend the Minister, he said:
To them he does nothing at all. He leaves them alone. This is an indication that the Government believe in or accept monopoly where it is in the hands of capitalism and their Tory capitalist friends, but are willing to bring in legislation to destroy co-ordination and integration where this has proceeded under public auspices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1427–28.]
I could not follow that argument, so I looked up another declaration by the right hon. Gentleman which does express his views with more lucidity. It was made when he was addressing the Labour Party Conference at Blackpool, on 8th June, 1949, in connection with the policy which was then entitled "Labour Believes in Britain" on which the party fought the Election of the following year. This is what the right hon. Gentleman said:
In this section of the programme 'Up with Production' we introduce a new application of Socialism and of Socialist doctrine. It is called 'Competitive Public Enterprise.' Thus we shall push into new fields and revitalise private enterprise with its own techniques of competition, and if I may say so, it will not be a bad thing for private enterprise that that should be. The Tories and their anti-Socialist friends should not be frightened of it, because they are firmly of the opinion that private enterprise can beat Socialist industry every time. If they think so, let them not be frightened of competitive public enterprise coming into competition with private enterprise.
May I say, as a socialiser, that within an appropriate field, it will not be a bad thing for the Socialist undertakings if they receive some competition from private enterprise? Let us not be afraid of it. What we are aiming at is the total economic efficiency and economic public spirit of the country. If within an appropriate field there is competition between private and public enterprise, the probability is that it will be good both for the public and the private sectors of industry.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear. Read on.

Mr. Braithwaite: I am not going to read any more. That is fair enough, and it is what the Government are now engaged in doing.
At the commencement of Public Business this afternoon there were presented to the House two petitions. That is a perfectly normal and proper democratic proceeding, of which this House is jealous. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) presented a petition which, he said, was signed by several thousand workers employed by London Transport. Then we had the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Dr. Jeger) with 1,200 members of the supervisory and clerical operative staff of the Road Haulage Executive in London, supported by 1,600 more from Newton-le-Willows. That was a very interesting contribution to the controversy.
I have something here which always adds to the interest of the debates. It is a telegram, which reached my right hon. Friend shortly before the House met this afternoon. I would call the attention of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South to it, because he figures in the telegram:
Please kill fairy tale by Morrison that transport workers better off under nationalisation. Sixty-seven thousand trade union members of Anti-Nationalisation Society confirmed otherwise.

Mr. H. Morrison: It seems that a lot of people are supporting the nationalised Post Office by telegrams. May I read one sentence from a telegram received by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris)? I think I have received a similar one. It says:
Indignantly repudiate any impression created by Lennox-Boyd that railwaymen favour decentralisation. Please hand this to one of tonight's speakers.—Fifty angry railway clerks, Camden Goods Station, N.W.1.
You pay your money to the Post Office and you take your choice.

Mr. Braithwaite: All this is highly entertaining and relevant. At the moment, all that one can say is that the anti-nationalisers seem to be leading by at least 60,000 votes. Of a very different calibre, however—

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas (The Wrekin) rose—

Mr. Braithwaite: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): If the Minister does not give way the hon. Member must resume his seat.

Mr. Thomas: On a point of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not see how any point of order can arise, but I will hear it.

Mr. Thomas: I suggest that my point of order be heard before you decide whether it is a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it correct or in order for the Minister to quote ex-parte statements or messages in proof of his case?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If I hear anyone quoting what he should not I shall stop him.

Mr. Braithwaite: Holders of other telegrams will perhaps catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
A speech of a very different calibre was that of the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn). I never heard him to better advantage than yesterday. His speech was moderate and full of constructive suggestion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] Hon. Members will make it rather difficult for those who want to follow me if there is to be a running commentary. I have a good deal to say, and I shall not resume my seat until I have said it.
The right hon. Gentleman dealt with the special transport problems of Scotland. They are well known and recognised, and many aspects of the matter were dealt with in the debate on 28th June. A number of the right hon. Gentleman's points are matters which should probably be discussed in detail in Committee. Hon. Gentlemen certainly will not expect me to detain the House about them now. I shall, therefore, refer to the Scottish problem in rather general terms.
The Transport Act of 1947 placed the railways in this country under a unified control and the essence of the Government proposal for reorganising the railways of this country, as my right hon. Friend indicated yesterday, is to make regional management real and effective and to stimulate local loyalties which we feel are so important a part of the efficiency of any large-scale organisation. At the same time, the Government have no intention of forgoing the advantages


which can be gained by effective central control where this has proved itself to the common advantage.
As my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland indicated when Scottish transport matters were discussed here in July, the Bill envisages the creation of a regional railway authority for Scotland which will be set up after consultation between my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Bill recognises that the special problems of Scotland may require special treatment and, under the provisions of Clause 14, both the organisation and the functions of the Scottish area authority may differ, to whatever extent may prove necessary, from the organisation and functions of the other railway regions which may be set up.
As it is the intention and policy of the Government that the new railway authorities should have the greatest practicable measure of local autonomy and freedom of management, it is a reasonable hope that this, with the increased flexibility which it should bring, will enable Scottish transport problems to be tackled vigorously and afresh. There must, however, by common agreement, remain a measure of financial control to the central authority. This has undoubted benefits and, indeed, Scotland would unquestionably be the losers under any scheme which attempted to restore full financial autonomy to the regional railway authorities.
The system of area transport consultative committees which was set up under the 1947 Act has proved its value. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with that.

Mr. Barnes: indicated assent.

Mr. Braithwaite: These committees have functioned efficiently as clearing houses for the discussion of users' transport problems of many kinds connected with the British Transport Commission. It is the hope of the Government that increasing use will be made of these area committees. In recognition of the fact that Scotland and Wales have their own peculiar difficulties, and to ensure the more direct expression of Scottish and Welsh views, the Bill provides that the Scottish and Welsh area consultative committees shall in future make their reports direct to the Minister of Trans-

port and not, as hitherto, to the Central Transport Consultative Committee.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: What about poor old England?

Mr. Braithwaite: We hope that this will ensure that the Minister receives the earliest and most authoritative indication of Scottish and Welsh views on any matter of major concern to the users in these areas.

Mr. Thomas Steele: I asked some specific questions yesterday about area authorities and what the Parliamentary Secretary has said so far has not enlightened us or given us any fresh information. We want to know whether these area authorities will be functional authorities or, as we gathered from the Minister yesterday, that there will be a board superimposed upon the people who are functioning at the present time.

Mr. Braithwaite: The consultative committees with which I am dealing are advisory—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In any case, I was about to say that the scope of these committees has been widened to cover the passenger service provided by companies controlled directly or indirectly by the commission. We think that this is an important point for Scotland. The actual machinery is a matter for detailed discussion as soon as we get to the Committee stage.

Mr. Steele: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He was dealing with two points. I waited because I thought they were interlinked. First, there was the question of the area authorities consultative committees. I thought that in his approach to the consultative committees we would get some information. We want to know if these area authorities will be functional bodies or if there will be a new board superimposed upon the present set up, giving a lot more jobs to the boys.

Mr. Braithwaite: If the hon. Member would read Clause 14 (2, c) he will see—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is the answer. One of the objects is:
..delegation to those authorities of such functions of the Commission relating to that part of their undertaking as may be so specified in relation to those authorities respectively.

Mr. A. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman


has been very good to reply to some of the points I raised yesterday and has stated clearly the position which the Government contemplate in regard to the railways in Scotland. He also referred to consultative committees. One thing which did not appear from his statement is what is to happen to road transport in Scotland. Am I to take it from what the hon. Gentleman has said that the railways in Scotland will be able to extend their road transport functions to cover the transport necessities of Scotland, so that the organisation which is to be set up will provide the integrated transport system which the Scots want?

Mr. Braithwaite: We cannot spend the whole day reading the Bill, but Clause 14 (9) covers the right hon. Gentleman's first point. The Commission will conduct their road services in such manner as they think best and most beneficial for the purpose. Recommendations reaching the Minister from the Scottish and Welsh committees can, like those from the Central Committee, form the subject of a ministerial directive to the Commission.
May I come now to another matter which the right hon. Member for East Stirling raised and which, I thought, was of supreme importance and relevance to this great problem? He devoted a considerable portion of his speech to abuses, particularly in Scotland, of the facility usually referred to as C hiring margins. This facilitiy is an essential part of the system of carriers' licences and is provided for by Section 2 (6) of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. This subsection permits an operator to use under his C licence vehicles which he does not own but which he wants to hire from persons who either do not hold A or B carriers' licences or cannot themselves legally carry the traffic.
As the right hon. Gentleman indicated, some ingenious people are using this facility to evade the 25-mile radius restriction imposed by the Act of 1947. I must tell him that the licensing authorities are keeping a careful watch on this question. Some instances which seem to indicate an abuse of this facility have been investigated and enforcement action has been taken where practicable. The increase in the number of vehicles authorised under C hiring margins does not indicate any serious abuse. In any event, the disappearance of the 25-mile limit will

remove the incentive to abuse it, and it may be expected that any abuse will then disappear and the C hiring margin will once again be used for its proper purpose as was the case prior to the passage of the 1947 Act. I am hopeful that that will deal with the difficulty to which the right hon. Gentleman so rightly called our attention.

Mr. Woodburn: An even more important aspect than the question of exceeding the 25 miles is that, although the 25 miles is included, so far as I can see it will still be possible for a driver to be employed by different people for 22 out of the 24 hours. Are the Government doing anything about this?

Mr. Braithwaite: Yes, indeed; that is being very carefully examined. It is a matter of great importance, but not, I thought, of as much importance as the question of abuse. However, the right hon. Gentleman did well to call our attention to this again.
I was glad to hear my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) call attention to the importance of coastal shipping when considering the whole field of transport. I should like to underline the tribute which he paid to the work of our coasters, particularly during the recent war. Quite apart from the epic operations at Dunkirk and on D day, the public tend to forget that day by day, throughout the whole of the war, colliers from the Firth of Forth and from the Tyne were steadily bringing coal into London, exposed as they were to the E boats and to dive bombing—

Mr. David Jones: And from the Tees.

Mr. Braithwaite: Yes, and from the Welsh ports as well. I cannot name all the north-eastern ports, amongst which are Seaham Harbour, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool, which I must mention because its hon. Member has interrupted. All these ports were pouring coal into London. It is often forgotten that throughout the whole period of hostilities, 12 million tons of coal were reaching London by sea every year. We recognise the particular problems of coastal shipping, with the competition that tramps will have to face from rail, and liners from road, under the framework of the Bill.
A number of other points were raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash, and I should like to deal briefly with them. He asked us to examine Clause 21 to ensure that it is fully workable. This is a Committee point, and careful consideration will be given then to any criticisms of the workability of the Clause, but not to any suggestions to extend the scope of the Clause, which limits complaints to rates which are below the maximum charges, which if continued must result in a loss to the Commission, and which are being made with a view to eliminating competition.
My hon. and gallant Friend said that there should be a shipping panel from which additional members could be added to the Transport Tribunal. Section 39 of the 1933 Act already provides for a shipping panel for the purposes of that Section, which is now to be replaced by Clause 21 of the Bill. There are, however, general and transport panels under Section 24 of the Railways Act, 1921, and a special panel under paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule to the Transport Act, 1947, which was passed by hon. Members opposite. Careful consideration will be given during the Committee stage to any proposals for the addition of shipping representatives to one of these panels or for the constitution of a further panel for the purposes of Clause 21.
My hon. and gallant Friend wanted more precise power to ensure prior consultation between the B.T.C. and coastal shipping interests on charges schemes. I understand that there has already been such consultation in regard to the draft Merchandise Charges Scheme, which the Commission have been preparing for some time. Indeed, when in July of last year the previous Minister allowed a further period for the submission of the draft charges scheme, the primary reason for such postponement in the case of the draft Merchandise Charges Scheme was the need—I think the right hon. Member for East Ham, South would confirm this—to allow more time for further discussions between the Commission and coastal shipping interests.

Mr. Barnes: indicated assent.

Mr. Braithwaite: I am glad to have that confirmation. No more precise power such as has been suggested seems to be necessary.
Then, my hon. and gallant Friend was anxious that there should be powers to encourage or ensure conference procedure between road, rail and coastal shipping interests. It would be contrary to the intentions of the Bill to introduce provisions which would limit fair competition between the different forms of transport. This does not rule out the possibility of conferences designed to avoid uneconomic or unfair competition. Such conferences are, however, a matter for arrangement between the interests concerned. It would be impracticable to attempt to put such conferences on a statutory basis or to provide for statutory enforcement of decisions of conferences, whether statutory or voluntary. In our view, the position is fully met by the existence of the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee, to which it is now proposed, under the Bill, to add representatives of the road hauliers.
A request was made for provision for the Minister to be acquainted with developments likely to have damaging repercussions on coastal shipping.

Mr. James Callaghan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Braithwaite: I am taking a long time, and I am anxious to get on.

Mr. Callaghan: The Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee is, as its name implies, advisory. How will any decisions that are arrived at by this Advisory Committee be enforced upon the small road haulier plying the roads? Quite clearly, they can be enforced upon the railways, which is a national undertaking, but how will the Government ensure that the road hauliers do not under-cut the coastal shipping rates, and so ensure that our coastal shipping does not fall into decreptitude?

Mr. Braithwaite: Admittedly, that is a complicated matter—[Laughter.]—certainly, which it is extremely difficult to place in a statute, but my right hon. Friend—indeed, any Government, of any colour, at any time—must be conscious of the pressure of public opinion in these matters. I see no method of writing into the Bill—

Mr. Callaghan: Except by nationalisation. That is the difficulty which the hon. Gentleman gets into.

Mr. Braithwaite: It is the difficulty that the hon. Member gets into through not being able to attend the debate yesterday, when we had a long discussion. I am dealing with speeches which were made yesterday. I am sorry that the hon. Member was not with us, but I am trying to deal with the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash.
Provision was asked for to enable the Minister to be acquainted with developments likely to have damaging repercussions on coastal shipping. Again, such a provision would be difficult to frame and open to objections. The existence of the Advisory Committee will, we hope, help to meet that position.
During his speech, my hon. and gallant Friend also suggested that the local licensing authorities should have regard to the special position of coastwise shipping when deciding whether or not to grant carriers' licences. Under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, Section 11 (2), it is the duty of the licensing authority to take into consideration any objections made by
persons who are already providing facilities whether by means of road transport or any other kind of transport, for the carriage of goods for hire or reward in the district or between the places which the applicant intends to serve.
That duty still remains.
My right hon. Friend recognises that the end of the Commission's monopoly of long-distance road haulage and the greater freedom of charges will create a new situation and problems for the coastal shipping interests. We have, consequently, amended the machinery of the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee so that it can function over the whole field, including the activities of private road hauliers, as well as coastal shipping and the Commission.
In future, the new Committee will report to my right hon. Friend, not only on matters which jointly affect the Commission and the coastal shipping interests, but also those affecting coastal shipping and road haulage interests. For this purpose, the Committee will be reconstituted with representatives of A and B licensees, coastal shipping interests and Commission members. We hope that this will provide a medium for

co-operation by all these interests in the wider interests of transport.
It was not possible yesterday for my right hon. Friend to touch upon the important topic of docks and hotels and I want to say a word about that. Questions have been asked about the extent to which the reorganisation schemes to be prepared by the Commission under Clause 14 for submission to the Minister are to cover activities which at present are the responsibility of executives other than the Railway Executive. In particular, some anxiety has been expressed about the future position of the docks and harbours now vested in the Commission and managed on their behalf by the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive.
The House will appreciate that under the provisions of Clause 14 a wide discretion is given the Commission in regard to what may or may not be covered by a reorganisation scheme. At the same time it is the clear intention of the Clause that the task of primary importance is the reorganisation of the railways and their ancillary activities, such as restaurant cars. I was astonished to find, on looking it up, that for the two years 1950 and 1951 these made a loss of £1,280,000. It is to be expected that the Commission will concentrate on this task and will treat the future organisation of docks and harbours vested in them as a separate and distinct issue.
The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks)—who speaks with such authority on these matters, and with a long record of service to the railways behind him—asked whether the Commission will be free to acquire road haulage undertakings under the provisions of the Bill. The position is that the Commission as such will be unable to acquire or retain any transport units because this would be in conflict with their obligation to dispose of the property now held by them for the purposes of the Road Haulage Executive and Clause 4 makes the only provision for enabling such units to be made over to companies controlled by the Commission.
There is, however, nothing in the Bill to prevent the Commission obtaining an interest in a road haulage undertaking by purchase of shares and this interest could be sufficiently large, of course, to give them control. Further, they could acquire a road haulage undertaking outright and


operate the service themselves. In this event, however, they would have to obtain the necessary carrier's licence from the licensing authority.
The position in regard to road passenger services is, however, different. Under Clause 16 the Commission are prohibited from acquiring a road passenger undertaking but can acquire an interest by shareholding in such an enterprise. If, however, that interest would give them control they must first obtain the consent of the Minister.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), who also contributed to the debate yesterday and also speaks with many years of experience behind him, asked a very pertinent question—why the National Coal Board were singled out for special mention as one of the bodies able to make objections or representations to the Minister on a scheme of reorganisation under Clause 15. There is a reason; the Coal Board is the largest user of rail transport and is obviously closely concerned in any scheme of reorganisation of the railways. The words immediately preceding "National Coal Board" provide that objections or representations may be made by
bodies representative of classes of persons likely to be specially affected by the scheme.
The National Coal Board is not covered by these words because it is not a body
representative of classes of persons likely to be specially affected by the scheme.
Nor in view of its character, apart from the fact that it is nationalised, is there any body which could be representative of a class which would include it. For this reason, and for this reason alone, the National Coal Board is mentioned specifically by name.

Mr. Percy Morris: In view of the fact that the railways are by far the largest customers of the National Coal Board, can a reciprocal arrangement be made?

Mr. Braithwaite: I do not think—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—I will certainly take note of the hon. Member's extremely interesting suggestion, but he will not expect a snap answer from me.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Is a transport users' consultative committee a

body representative of persons likely to be affected?

Mr. Braithwaite: There is another Clause in the Bill which gives those bodies a direct approach. The reason for the mention of the National Coal Board by name in this Clause is the point with which I was trying to deal.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Mr. I. O. Thomas rose—

Mr. Braithwaite: No, I cannot give way again, it is most unfair to hon. Members who want to take part in the debate.

Mr. Thomas: What about the British Electricity Authority?

Mr. Braithwaite: Many hon. Members have referred to criticisms of the Bill in the Press and particularly to the "Manchester Guardian." I want to deal with a leading article which appeared in that paper yesterday and contained the following passages:
Not only the road haulage system is to be broken into several parts: the railways, too, are to be reorganised into six regional management units—which in one Clause of the Bill are actually referred to as six companies—with a great deal of autonomy.
It then went on to talk of the Transport Commission and continued:
Yet this body is sketched in the Bill as a board of part-time directors, including the chairman of the six railway companies.
That is a most amazing statement, or two amazing statements. There is—as I need hardly tell hon. Members who, of course, have read the Bill, no reference whatever to the figure six as the number of regional management units—indeed, the scheme of regionalisation is left for the Commission to draft in the first case. Nor is there any reference to regional management units as "six companies."
As my right hon. Friend said yesterday, we have welcomed, and still welcome, informed criticism of the Bill, but we find it less easy to welcome criticism from those who quite clearly have not even read it and I am sure that hon. Members of the Liberal Party in this House, who have such a well-known passion for accuracy, will equally deplore this lamentable lapse on the part of a greatly respected news-sheet. After all, perusal of a Bill is no improper preliminary to editorial comment.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Mr. Ernest Davies (Enfield, East) rose—

Mr. Braithwaite: No, there is another Minister who will wind up and I have given way quite as much as usual.
It was the "Manchester Guardian" who took the lead in describing my hon. Friend as being between two fires, the Opposition and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. The right hon. Gentleman referred to it this afternoon and I want to read to the House a letter received this morning by my right hon. Friend from the Secretary-General of that body. I shall read it in toto because it is of great importance:

"DEAR MR. LENNOX-BOYD,

My President, Mr. Harry Yates, is absent from London but directs me, on his behalf, to refer to the very wide publicity recently accorded to the views of this Association with regard to the Transport Bill now before Parliament. Certain Press reports have perhaps given rise to an impression that the Association is opposed to the principles contained in the Government proposals.

To remove any possible doubts that may be in the minds of the Government and of Members of Parliament I am to reaffirm that the Chambers, of Commerce, as represented by this Association, support the Government's aims of ultimately returning road haulage to private ownership and management, and at the same time granting to railways a wider degree of flexibility in their freight charges schemes.

The creation of a State monopoly of long-distance road haulage was, in the Association's view, a serious mistake. The Association considers that only by the reintroduction of the widest possible measure of private ownership and management into the industry can a really efficient, flexible and economical road haulage service be provided.

My Association is confident that the variations it has suggested could be achieved within the framework of the Bill now before Parliament, and through a continuance of the extremely valuable discussions between yourself and your advisers on the one hand, and fully representative bodies of users on the other.

Finally, I am directed to express my Association's indebtedness to you and to your advisers at the Ministry for the prolonged and generous consideration which has been given to the views of users of transport in drafting the present Bill.

To avoid any further misunderstanding on this very important question, my President hopes that you will not hesitate to inform Parliament of the terms of this letter, should the need arise to do so. Subject, of course, to your agreement the Association would, for its part, wish to release the text of this communication to the Press.

Yours sincerely,

ARTHUR R. KNOWLES, Secretary-General." So much for the "Manchester Guardian."

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Callaghan rose—

Mr. Braithwaite: No, I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman will be speaking later and we shall be looking forward to hearing from him.

Mr. Callaghan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the variation?

Mr. Braithwaite: The time is still going rather fast, and I wish now to sum up the main argument for proceeding with this Measure.
Hon. Members opposite have done their democratic best to stir up indignation against our proposals, a perfectly proper function for any Opposition. Unfortunately for them, they have met with little response. In Bristol the other day there was a mass demonstration against the "great sell-out." The local Socialist Party, not being content with an inferior character, billed a top-liner, a rising star, none other than the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to this, because one of my supporters, who is politically minded—[Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh too soon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Now we know how you got here."]—hon. Members laugh just a little too soon. One of my supporters, who is politically minded in the sense that he makes a point of visiting meetings of all kinds held by all parties with a view to becoming informed on the views of all sections of opinion, went to hear the hon. Gentleman at this mass demonstration—

Mr. Callaghan: It was not a mass demonstration; it was only a ward meeting.

Mr. Braithwaite: Oh, no, not to discuss the "great sell-out." My friend went along early in the hope of getting into the hall, and he was surprised to find the streets comparatively deserted and no special constables on duty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Cut it out."] Not only did he get admission to the meeting, but he obtained a front seat, and—

Mr. Callaghan: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. The front two rows were empty.

Mr. Braithwaite: It may be the case that my friend was in the fifth row but was still at the front of the meeting. Anyhow, be that as it may, he sent me a factual and fair account of the proceed-


ings. He said of the hon. Gentleman as we should all of us expect, that
he made a brilliant speech, much liked by his audience, all 60 of them, or perhaps I should say 59, because I came away still a dissentient to the Socialist view.
The reason for the lack of public response to the Opposition campaign is, to my mind, crystal clear. People have seen State controlled road haulage fail before their very eyes. They have noticed the empty running of the B.R.S. vehicles and they have seen the statistics showing 5 per cent. more empty running than under the old system.
I would say this in all good temper, to hon. Gentlemen opposite who have pleaded so eloquently the case of the railways—we had the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) yesterday, and the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) among others. Had they been in this House a hundred years ago, in Dickensian times, at the time when the railways were making their encroachment into the heavy traffic and the carriage of goods in this country, they would have fulminated just as eloquently. From the benches opposite, and probably from a brief prepared by Mr. Tony Weller, they would have protested on behalf of the "National Union of Stage-coachmen, Postillions and Ostlers."
But today the pendulum has swung back. The story of the 20th century has been the story of the development of motor transport. Nothing, to my mind, was more significant during the recent debate on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech, than the way in which hon. Member after hon. Member, on both sides of the House, expressed a note of disquiet, if not alarm, at the appearance abroad of a buyers' market which would put a great strain on the capacity of this country to maintain her export trade. Hon. Member after hon. Member told us that the selling spree was over, and that we were now confronted with the toughest of struggles to maintain, let alone expand, our export trade.
In these circumstances, it is inconceivable that road haulage should remain in a strait-jacket, where long-distance services are confined to 41,000 vehicles. It is essential that the system should be far more flexible and that traders should have greater freedom to choose which

haulier they prefer. In commending this Bill to the House I would urge upon hon. Members that if British industry is to win through it is vital that British transport, be it road or rail, should once again be permitted to live and breathe.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: I was hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary might have made up today for the deficiencies of his Minister yesterday in explaining the need for this Bill. But, after his very lengthy exposition, I am more inclined to a theory which I have held for some time regarding this Government. It is that those people who are rather strong in the arm and weak in the head love to lay about them with a sledge hammer and to smash up something, and then laugh at what they have done while someone else has to look round to see how to put together again what they have smashed.
The number of thoughts the Government have had regarding this question of transport—first the White Paper, then the first Bill, now this Bill and now the promise of further Amendments to this Bill—are indicative of their state of mind. It is not too much to say that they appear to be rather strong in the arm but somewhat weak in the head.
Let us examine some of the things which have been said. It is well known that there is almost universal opposition to the Transport Levy. But what did the Minister say yesterday? He said, in effect, "Don't worry about it too much. After all, it will rank as a business charge and almost, if necessary, as a charge against Profits Tax and Excess Profits Levy. Therefore you can be quite happy about it. You will not really pay. It really means that the Treasury will pay. So don't worry yourselves about it."
It must be of comfort to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and their friends to know that they are not really expected to pay. Instead, this charge will be put on industry, or the nation, as a result of the activities of this Bill, and will be part of a legitimate business charge, so that they need not worry too much about it.
On the other hand, the hon. Member for Darlington (Sir F. Graham)—I am sorry that he is not here—put a rather different view on the levy. In discussing the large and increasing number of


C licence operators, he appeared to be expecting the levy to act as a deterrent which would force the operators more and more to use other transport. This is a sad comment, coming as it does from hon. Gentlemen opposite who want the greatest possible freedom. They do not want deterrents. They want the manufacturer to carry his own goods if he is better able to do so. But someone else says that the levy must be maintained on C licence holders so that it can act as a deterrent. I leave it to the Government to make up their minds what they really mean. On balance, I am not sure that they know exactly what they mean.
Also I wish to refer to a phrase which the Minister used yesterday when he talked about the transport which would or would not go back to the railways. He said:
Who stole the vehicles from the railways?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1418.]
Presumably, he was referring to the associated companies. Let us be clear. They were not stolen from the railways. They were handed over by the Railway Executive to the Commission so that an integrated system of transport could be secured.
It is within the knowledge of all hon. Members that in the early days of the Transport Commission there were complaints about the operation of the Road Haulage Executive. There were complaints about delays in delivery, failure to provide a service and so on. Of course, similar failures existed under private enterprise. There were many failures then. One need only scan the columns of the daily papers before the war to read about the inefficiency of the railway and road services. The usual excuse given by manufacturers who wanted to run their own transport in those days was that they could not trust the railways or the road hauliers to give them the service they required.
The complaints we have had about the Road Haulage Executive have been diminishing steadily during the whole period of the existence of the Executive. Surely that is some answer to the question about whether or not it is functioning. Nobody expects it to function perfectly all the time. Nobody expected it to function perfectly at the start, but the diminution in the number of complaints

received by hon. Members is an indication that the Executive was beginning to do its job efficiently in the interests of the community.
In spite of the testimonial letter which the Parliamentary Secretary read, perhaps we should look at another aspect of road transport. That letter reminds me of the gentleman who applied for a job and presented a testimonial. The employer said, "This appears to be a very good testimonial" and the man replied, "Well, it ought to be: I wrote it myself." I am rather inclined to the view that what the Parliamentary Secretary read was very much the same type of testimonial.
There were one or two little stings in it. In effect, it merely said that the Association had no doubt that the objectionable features of this Bill could be overcome if the conversations which they had been carrying on with the Ministry of Transport could be continued. That does not indicate that they are entirely happy about this business. In fact, the views they have expressed previously are probably much more correct, but some pressure has been brought to bear upon them to say something in defence of the Government.
They dare not very well do otherwise, having regard to their background and bearing in mind the horse on which they have put their money. They cannot say that it has lost before it has got into the straight. They must let it have a run for its money. In any case, they are very much concerned whether or not when these units are taken over and broken up they will get the service which they are now getting.
It should be made clear that by the very nature of things the Road Haulage Executive must, in order to provide a service, run some services which are un-remunerative. Under private enterprise, will hon. Gentlemen opposite expect any unit, and if so which, to run an un-remunerative enterprise merely for the purpose of providing a service? The answer is that no one will be willing to do that. In that case, how is the manufacturer to get a service? Of course, he could have a C licence. Alternatively, he would have to say to the haulier, "This is a most expensive rate which is rather more than I can afford to pay;


but you have me by the throat and I shall have to pay." He will then remember the service run previously for the public benefit. We have not yet had any answer to show how the service will operate.
I should like to know what, under the Bill, is an operable unit. It could be one vehicle. In fact, before the war, it was in many cases. Equally, an operable unit could be one of 40,000 vehicles. We cannot get much guidance from the Bill about the Government's intentions on the splitting up of the service into operable units. Let us assume that they intend to take the smallest possible number as a unit. What will happen?
Obviously, the best vehicles will be picked out, and the worst vehicles will be left behind. Who will use those vehicles? Of course, provision is made for the continuance of some sort of organisation to operate the rump. It will be something like the Rump Parliament: it will not be very much good. That is what is intended. That is the intention of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Private enterprise will be able to skim off the best of the services and the best of the vehicles. Those vehicles which are nearly past their useful life will be left in the hands of the Commission. This cannot be good. We shall seek to amend the Bill in that connection. It remains to be seen just how forthcoming the Government are when we get to the Committee stage.
I should like to ask what is meant by the freedom of the railways with regard to charges. It is fairly obvious that this freedom is strictly to be limited. As far as I can understand from the Bill, it will presumably relate only to those classes of traffic in which the railway will be in competition with road haulage. I should like to know whether that is so. From the very guarded nature of the Bill, I assume that that is so.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I did not quite catch the point, and I am most anxious to answer all that I can. Will the hon. Gentleman explain once more?

Mr. Pargiter: I want to know what is meant by the reference to the freedom of the railways with regard to the release

from certain restrictions on charges. My impression is that that will be limited to certain classes of goods. It will be limited to those classes in which the railways will be in competition with private road hauliers.
I take it that it most certainly will not apply to the mineral traffic which the railways carry. In other words, if the railways are running those services at a loss now, they will still be required to run them at a loss and will have to find other means of recouping themselves. If they cannot recoup themselves from other forms of transport, it will be interesting to know how they can do it. It has long been recognised that the railways provide the only means by which long-distance mineral traffic can possibly be carried.
If this mineral traffic is to be carried at a remunerative rate, it will be interesting to see where the charges go. I do not know very much about these charges. I should welcome enlightenment, but I would say that if the railways were free to charge the economic cost of the transport of minerals they could easily pay for their operations in conjunction with their other types of business. That is my impression. I hesitate to say what the charge might be for the transport of coal and other commodities if the railways were permitted to do that.
Next I want to refer to A and B licences and the removal of restrictions. There is a widespread impression that the removal of the 25-mile radius limit on hauliers, which exists at the present time, is going to be of universal application. I should be very interested to hear if that is so, because a very large number of C licence holders have operated for years under a restricted radius licence. They have been subjected to restrictions which were imposed by the Commission when granting their licences.
The impression has been conveyed, rightly or wrongly, that they are going to be released entirely from this restriction, and that is not a very good thing at all. If that is so, they will no longer have to keep to that limit, but will be free to get traffic without restriction in the area in which they operate. I should be interested to know whether that is really the intention of the Government, because, if so, they might as well scrap the 1930 and 1933 Acts and say that it is a "free for all." That is virtually what the effect would be of any such move.
We hear a good deal about transport running below load, and, in pre-war days, road transport used to operate, as far as loading was concerned, in this way. There would be a load, say, from London to Manchester, and the driver would be instructed to report to a clearing house in order to get a return load. The general practice was that he had got to get a load, while the rate for which he was carrying it did not really matter.
It was the general practice of people coming to London with loads, or vice versa, to send the driver to the clearing house, where the other party will dictate the price they were prepared to pay for it. It was usually an uneconomic price for the load which the driver was instructed to bring back. It was not the proper carriage rate, and sometimes it was only half the recognised rate, but it was done in order to get a return load. What has been the general effect of that? It has been to destroy the effectiveness of British road transport, quite apart from the general effect on the railways, which were not free to carry out any such operations, which, in fact, would be quite useless to them.
We must ask the Government if they will take steps to protect industry and everybody else against a return to these conditions, but there is nothing in this Bill which gives protection against the uneconomic conditions which operated in those days and which the present system has largely eliminated.
I now want to ask a question with regard to the contract carriages. There is a Clause here which prohibits the Commission from running contract carriages outside London, except for a certain limited radius, and except for the purpose of carrying staff on outings and things of that kind. I take it that that means that, if I want to hire either a single or double-decker bus in order to take a party to Margate, I am to be forced by this Clause to go to some other undertaking than London Transport to do it. At present, I can do so; I can go to London Transport and say that I want a bus or a Green Line coach for a seaside trip, and they will arrange for it to be made available. In future, I shall no longer have the freedom, as an individual, to choose what type of transport I want, but I will be obliged to go to a particular channel of transport in order to get that job done.
Is that the intention, and, if so, why should not London Transport, which can provide vehicles even during peak hours for other people, be allowed to do the job? Why should public enterprise be hampered and hamstrung? Let us be given an indication whether this is the intention of the Government, because it certainly appears to be, and I commend the point to the attention of the Home Secretary. It seems to me that this is not merely a question of freedom of operation, but a question of throwing the whole weight on the side of the friends of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
There has been some discussion—and my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Transport referred to it—on the question of the difficulties which manufacturers are experiencing at the present time. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite realise that, so far as heavy vehicles are concerned, the export market is practically dead. One of the principal markets—Australia—was killed by the activities of the present Government and the counter activities of the Australian Government, and there is little left in the export trade.
The position at the moment, due to the very considerable uncertainty which has been caused as to the future of transport, is that nobody in this country is anxious to buy expensive vehicles, in the uncertainty which has been deliberately created by the Government and which is having such severe repercussions on the industry itself. While I do not suppose it matters very much to them, it is very important to the workpeople who are engaged in this industry, whose very livelihood becomes more precarious as a result of this period of uncertainty through which we are now passing.
I want to ask some questions about the repair staffs employed by the British Transport Commission. It is well known that a very large number of undertakings were amalgamated, smaller units being taken over and absorbed into larger units, and more efficient repair shops have been put into operation. There has been a considerable improvement in the reorganisation of fixed vehicles, spare parts and repair services, so that these services could be readily adapted to particular types of vehicles in particular areas, which is quite a useful thing to do,


instead of having masses of spare parts for all sorts of different types.
All that has been going on under the Road Haulage Executive, but what is going to happen now? Are we now to go back to the small repair units which existed before, or, in some cases, to no repair units at all? Are we going back to that position in which units were of such a size that they could never, in any circumstances, be able to operate effectively? No one can deny that, in pre-war days, very large numbers of vehicles on the road were unroadworthy. That is not the position today as far as the Road Haulage Executive is concerned. We have a standard of maintenance of vehicles which has never been surpassed at any time in the history of this country, and the standard of safety on the roads has been enhanced as a result. Are we now going back to the days of the small unit, with no maintenance?
Let us have another look at certain other aspects of this question. The practice in large units was to have one vehicle off the road for purposes of overhaul and repairs, and the number of vehicles off the road at any one time in the case of large units is proportionately smaller than is the case with small units If a man operates two vehicles and he has to maintain a service, he must have one in reserve Equally, if there are 10 vehicles in a unit, there is only the need to have one vehicle in repair or in reserve at any particular time, so that the proportion in small units must be very much larger than in the case of the large units.
In fact, the whole tendency of the road transport industry has been towards larger units and an increasing size in units. The day of the small operator finished years ago so far as effective transport is concerned. So far as long-distance road haulage is concerned, it was operated by large units which gave a relatively more efficient service to the public than the smaller units.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Would it also be correct to say that many of these large units were actually amalgamated under companies or finance organisations which had, in effect, monopoly control in the areas of the country covered by several such units?

Mr. Pargiter: I think that is true. Many of the trunk route units were virtually monopolies in their operations in regard to the services they provided, and, to this extent, no small unit could possibly compete with them. I think my hon. Friend's observation is quite correct in that respect. While not officially a monopoly, they were practically a monopoly from the point of view of their operation. I am not arguing that a monopoly is necessarily bad, but it is certainly bad when it can hold the public to ransom. In some cases monopolies operated in that way, but so far as their efficiency was concerned they were undoubtedly much better maintained than a relatively large number of small units which operated previously. Those of us concerned with the loss of life on the road today must be vitally concerned that anything we do now should not put the clock back in regard to road safety.
What is going to happen to the staffs? Are they going to be shunted on to the street? Are they going to get compensation, or will they be required to go back to some hole-and-corner garage in order to find work? I think the Government ought to say something about what they intend to do with the staffs at present employed by the Road Haulage Executive.
A matter with which I am particularly concerned is the question of apprentices. I understand that at the present time the Road Haulage Executive have 330 apprentices in their repair shops. That may not seem a very large number to right hon. and hon. Members opposite, but it is a vitally important matter to those people who have entered this industry for the purpose of learning how to repair and maintain vehicles in a proper condition. It also has a bearing on the future safety of vehicles on the road. The Road Haulage Executive have a properly drawn up apprenticeship deed under its common seal and signed by a member of the Executive and the Secretary. In it they undertake within a given period of years to teach these apprentices the secrets of the trade and how properly to deal with the maintenance and repair of vehicles.
What is going to happen to these 330 apprentices? It may be said with regard to fitters, fitters' mates, and so on, that they can get a job anywhere because they


are qualified, but that cannot be said about these apprentices with whom the Road Haulage Executive have entered into a contract. This is really a very important matter, and I am quite sure thtat the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate its importance. I hope that the Government spokesman will make a statement later on which will allay the fears of these apprentices that they are not going to have the opportunity of learning a trade on which they have set their hearts and in respect of which a solemn promise has been given.
Regarding one or two points made by the Parliamentary Secretary today, I hope the Home Secretary will elucidate the matter a little further. The Commission will, apparently, have the same right subsequently to enter the market with a view to acquiring control over road haulage vehicles. While ostensibly the undertaking will be limited to six-fifths of its present capacity regarding the number of vehicles which it can take over, it will be under no limitation, other than the normal traffic limitations, regarding the number of vehicles or undertakings which it can acquire in the future.
It is nonsense to separate the industry and to take part of it away if, at the same time, the Commission are to be free to buy their way back into the industry again. Providing they are willing and can afford to pay the price, they can come in again and recreate the monopoly about which the right hon. and hon. Members opposite are complaining at the present time. If that is really the intention, it is most enlightening, and I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will explain that matter a little more fully.
I apologise for taking up more of the time of the House than I had intended, but I trust that the points I have raised are really germaine to this discussion. I hope they will be regarded as important points and will be considered accordingly. Even at this late hour I suggest to the Government that in any further conversations they may have with their friends and with the various people with whom they are concerned they should decide that discretion is the better part of valour in this particular battle and should agree, after all, to give the Transport Commission an opportunity to complete the job they have so well started. They should be given a full and free opportunity to

provide the country with a properly integrated transport service. If after a fair trial they fail to provide the public with such a service at a reasonable charge then would be the time to present some alternative to this House, but I submit that that time has not yet arrived.
This Bill is ill-conceived and doctrinaire and has only been brought forward to satisfy certain interests who have supported the party opposite. I ask the Government to be big enough to get rid of this Bill and to give us back the opportunity of getting a real transport service.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. John Maclay: No one could possibly complain that the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) has not devoted his speech to the contents of the Bill. He has produced a long and most interesting series of questions, but I do not think he will expect me to attempt to deal with them. Indeed, I think he would find the answers to some of them if he studied the Bill. For instance, there is nothing in the Bill about B licences. The Bill deals with A licences, but that is not a point for me to deal with.
The points raised in many of the speeches from hon. Members opposite show that there has not been a real understanding of what this Bill is intended to do and what it contains. Even more striking than that, there has been no sign, particularly yesterday and little more today, of the old enthusiasm for nationalised integration of transport as the ultimate solution of all transport problems.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: Tell that to Scotland.

Mr. Maclay: The theme running through all the speeches made by hon. Members opposite is that this baby is a young one. It may have a squint and it may have knock knees, but give it a chance to grow up. That has been the real argument from the party opposite. One almost expected to hear the classic remark about the unwanted baby, that it is only a little one. The whole trouble is that this is a very big baby, and if the health of our transport system is not good the whole of our economic life will suffer desperately
There are certain points on which I think there must be general agreement. We obviously want the best possible


working conditions for those employed in the transport system of this country.

Mr. G. Lindgren: Why did not the party opposite do that before?

Mr. Maclay: We have been developing in all these ways over the years. No one has ever pretended on this side of the House that everything has been perfect in the past, but both sides of the House have a tremendous record in the matter of improving conditions. I am quite certain that with existing legislation, and with more legislation if it proves necessary, we will be able to protect the best interests of the workers.

Mr. Lindgren: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman and his friends protect the workers in road transport in the inter-war years?

Mr. Maclay: There was steady progress. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) has his own views on this matter and we have argued it before. He is always ready to charge private enterprise, whether in civil aviation, road and rail transport or anything else, with bad practice, but—

Mr. Lindgren: We have done the job, you know.

Mr. Maclay: Every party in the country has a good record of trying to improve working conditions by means of legislation. The party on this side of the House has as good a record as any, and a better one because it has been doing it for very much longer.
Then, again, we want safety on the roads. Wise legislation can contribute to that result. There is a lot of legislation in existence already, and if it is not adequate it can be looked at. But, above all, the whole purpose of transport must be to get delivery of goods as fast as is reasonably possible with existing technical developments, and delivery must be dependable.
Another requirement which is not often remembered is that goods must be traceable along their routes. That, unfortunately, is not the case with the system developed in the last few years. It has been a serious complaint that goods may disappear completely while in transit. I do not mean that they are lost or

stolen, but that in the course of their movement no one knows where they are. It is obviously possible to put that right, but that is the position at the moment.
I think too that all agree that the user must have full choice of means of transport. I hope that hon. Members accept that. It is written into the 1947 Act. If that is so, I come to the next point which was revealed in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes). It is that there is a contradiction in the 1947 Act which is responsible for many of the present problems. The right hon. Gentleman made an extremely pleasing speech. He expressed his views strongly and with conviction, but even he admitted that when he was the Minister he was not satisfied with what he found in transport.
He said that he has been prepared to consider a full inquiry but chose another method. I believe that he himself revealed one good reason why he was not satisfied. On the one hand, he was saying that an objective of the 1947 Act was to provide a system which would make the minimum use of the economic resources of the country. He went on to say, on the other hand, that the Act was so drawn up and the administration of it was such that a great deal of flexibility was left. The two are not consistent.
The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say that he disliked the thought of railways being subject to acute competition. But what is happening at the moment under the 1947 Act? Is it not correct to say that the Road Haulage Executive are competing hard with the railways for traffic. Is not that what they are bound to do? Do hon. and right hon. Members opposite know in their hearts of hearts what they want to achieve under the 1947 Act? I do not think that they do. I believe that that is the cause of a lot of trouble.
If they believe in a complete monopoly of transport, there is a theoretical argument, superficially attractive, in favour of it. With monopolistic control of the transport resources of the nation one can decide what shall move by which means of transport, but I do not think that anybody in this House believes that in practice such a system will ever work or give a proper service.
I have the greatest admiration for those who are responsible for working the present system. They are doing their best to make the 1947 Act work. I believe that they have achieved some satisfactory results on which we can build further. Those results did not necessarily arise from the merits of the Act.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: How did they arise?

Mr. Maclay: Some good jobs have been done—the road-rail container development for example, and that kind of co-ordination. We shall have to do more of it. It is a great pity that more of it was not done by the railways before the war. I have always believed that there is a tremendous future for the container. That fact is only now beginning to be realised. The container system has been developed on the Continent and should be developed a great deal more here. But the 1947 Act is not essential for that purpose.
The whole difficulty of the Act is that we cannot have a double objective at the same time. One cannot have monopoly and at the same time say that one wants the railways and the Road Haulage Executive to be separate. If road transport does not search for traffic, what will happen? Hon. Members opposite must either come quite frankly to the point of saying that they want complete monopoly of transport or else they must say that they want competition. If they want competition, is the best and most effective way of securing wise competition to have one nationalised sector of industry competing with another nationalised sector?
I suggest that the Bill which is now before the House is a real advance on anything that has gone before. I will not argue that it is the end of all possible Bills on transport. This is a democracy, thank goodness, and there can be a lot of argument. Most of us will recognise that transport cannot be a static industry in any sense of the word in this country. It must be flexible, it must be ready to use new inventions and to meet the constantly changing needs of industry.
What does this Bill do? It is giving the railways a chance which they never had before. It is leaving plenty of opportunity for that kind of development which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) is

so keen to see, as he said quite rightly last night—that is a measure of co-ordination of road and rail. As the Parliamentary Secretary explained this afternoon, the Commission will be able to start off with its pre-1947 volume of transport plus 20 per cent. That is possible, and there are possibilities of further expansion through the procedure of the licensing authority.
The hon. Member for Southall uttered a wise warning that there is a chance of back-door monopoly. If that is so, the House should see that the matter is put right in the Bill. There should not be that possibility. All through the Bill there is an effort to preserve what is best in the 1947 Act and then to allow for expansion and for freeing that part of the industry which the 1947 Act has suppressed and forced to operate uneconomically.
A great deal of the success of the Bill now before us must depend upon the scheme-making powers in Clauses 14 and 15. There we come to the very special problem of Scotland, and I think that we Scottish Members can be forgiven for seeing this as a special problem. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire pointed out yesterday some of the reasons why there is a special problem here. Our industries are more remote from the main markets than are industries in other parts of the country. A really efficient transport system is absolutely vital if industry in Scotland is to be maintained at its present level of efficiency.

Mr. Manuel: That is going to be killed by this Bill.

Mr. Maclay: No, not a bit. The Scottish Council for Development in Industry has produced some weighty observations on the transport problem. We went into the argument last night whether integration and co-ordination were the same thing. Let us leave that for a moment and look at what the Scottish Council really want. The point that I was making yesterday when I intervened was that the Scottish Council were not arguing that integration could only be achieved provided there was common ownership of all the means of transport. [HON. MEMBERS: "They said it."] They could not have meant that, because they went on to suggest that coastwise shipping, British European Airways and all forms of


transport in Scotland should be brought under some form of co-ordination.

Mr. Woodburn: I agree that they did not suggest that shipping should be altered, but even after the Government announced the proposals they immediately said that it seemed inconceivable to them that integration could be achieved unless the Commission were enabled to retain the road vehicles under their ownership in Scotland.

Mr. Maclay: I am not going to argue again what they did or did not say, but what is happening under the Bill is that the Commission will retain a substantial proportion of road transport. It is there in the Bill, and I think that is very necessary for Scotland. What we really have to watch in the development of the "scheme" for Scotland—I think we are on common ground here—is that there is the maximum effective control in Scotland of those sections of transport which remain nationalised. We have heard the Parliamentary Secretary's comments on that, and until schemes are presented we will not be able to argue very constructively.
I hope that one thing which will happen is that, before the schemes are presented, there will be maximum consultation with the Scottish interests and all who understand the problem in that part of the world. Some device may be found whereby Scottish Members of Parliament can discuss the scheme for Scotland before it is too far advanced. One of the difficulties is that too often we get schemes at a stage when we can do little to alter them. I hope that some device will be found whereby we can consider the scheme in its early stages and see how it can best be developed.
What I understand the Scottish Council on Development in Industry are after, which merits the most serious consideration, is that there should be an authority in Scotland which, if it does not actually operate both road and rail, should at least be in a position to co-ordinate the activities of road and rail. I think that is right. We have the special problem of the remote districts, and I hope that any such authority would also be empowered, or would be recognised as the body, to have consultations with British European Airways and providers

of other forms of transport, and would be able to do something which is not done at present, namely, the proper tidying up of simple matters such as timetables, so that we could be certain that road, rail, air and sea are joining each other at the most convenient point of time and place.
It does not require State ownership to achieve this. State ownership is not even doing it. Let the right hon. Member for East Stirling consult some of the Scottish industrialists who sit on the Scottish Council for Development in Industry as to whether they think the present co-ordination of rail and roads under the 1947 Act is providing what Scotland wants. There is considerable concern at the moment about the lack of co-operation between road and rail. It may not be wise—we need more time to consider it—to have one authority managing all the nationalised forms of transport in Scotland, but fortunately the Bill in Clause 14 provides for co-ordinating authorities, and it may be that in a co-ordinating authority the solution will be found for Scotland.
May I put in a plea for the part-time director? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, and I will give my reasons for it. I was very glad that the Minister yesterday expressed himself so strongly on that point. In Scotland the case is even stronger. The part-time member—whether he is a committee member or a board director; it does not matter what they are called—brings in at the early stages of policy-making the widest knowledge possible.
We want on these boards people who understand the special needs of industry, people who understand the social need of different parts of the country. They would not be guinea pig directors. Even if they only attend relatively few meetings, they can still make invaluable contributions, and I will say this at the risk of causing some offence, that I do not believe that our difficulties last winter over the Clyde Piers would ever have arisen had there been a board of part-time directors alongside the chief regional officer, who was doing his level best to do the job properly but needed guidance from people with wider outside experience than he could possibly have.
Please do not let anybody think that a consultative committee is the answer to this kind of problem. Consultative committees serve a very useful purpose. Very


excellent people give a great deal of time and energy to them, but the whole difficulty with consultative committees is that, by their nature, they only get problems to consider when either the policy is far advanced or when the consequences of policy are being felt. The consultative committee has a useful part to play, but it can never take the part of an area board of directors, or whatever they may be called, who can bring in the best possible contribution of wide knowledge to solving the problems of a district.
I should like to mention coastwise shipping, and then I will conclude. The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) and the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with this subject very fully. The problem is really one of consultation, and under the new structure which will emerge under the Bill we can get consultation.

Mr. Woodburn: This is a very important point which was raised by the Parliamentary Secretary. As we understand the Bill, its purpose is to set road traffic free to compete with everybody. I think the right hon. Gentleman realises the necessity of protecting coastwise shipping. Could he explain how, with road transport in small units, there is going to be consultation which will combine them in any way so as to protect coastwise shipping from competition?

Mr. Maclay: It is not for me to say what will have to be decided by the Government in the long run, but I suggest that this is a possible answer. It is not the one or two lorries that are going to damage coastwise shipping. Damage would come about if long-distance road transport made a dead set on traffic which is at present moving by sea. I may be an incurable optimist, but I think that if we had an area authority such as I was beginning to describe, it could consult with road transport and coastwise shipping on what damage was being done. If there were clear signs that damage was being done to coastwise shipping, action could be taken. But I do not accept that that means protection from competition. It means protection from unfair competition.
I believe that the efficiency of coastwise shipping can increase as the years go on. I would hate to see the long-distance transport of this country, road,

rail and sea, put into one monopoly. But I am certain that devices can be found which will enable the best interests of coastal shipping to be protected without any such implication. The road haulage organisations are not irresponsible, and consultation can do a great deal.
The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) said last night—and I entirely agree with him—that we have, in the progress of this Bill from White Paper to Second Reading, a very good example of Parliamentary democracy. The proposals on this very difficult subject were presented early on. There has been a steady process of examination. This will continue during the Committee stage.
I end by saying what I said at the beginning. We shall get out of these proceedings a Bill which will be a great step forward for the transport industry. It will not be the final Bill to deal with transport for all time. No Bill could be. But if we are to get the very best out of road and rail transport there must be study, at the earliest possible opportunity, of the question of allowing a greater proportion of the nation's resources to go into capital investment in both railways and our road system. The railways have an immense future and, if they can get the capital investment they need over a period of years, they will be giving road transport a very difficult run for its money. I meant to elaborate that point, but I have taken too long.
I hope that this Bill will go through the House in all its stages and come out improved, as Bills always are improved in this House, and I believe that it will make a great contribution to the future of transport.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. James Harrison: We are all very pleased that the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) is sufficiently restored to health to be able to address us as capably and as pleasantly as he has done. I am sure I am speaking for everyone present when I wish him good health in the future. I hope that he will make regular contributions to these transport debates as the days pass by, because we shall have quite a lot of them before this particular Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.
I was looking for the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), but he is not in his place. His


whole speech yesterday consisted of reading extracts from Socialist discussion pamphlets. I wanted to ask him—and it may be that some hon. Members opposite will reply for him—if there are any Conservative discussion pamphlets on this very vexed question of transport organisation. Are there any serious Conservative contributions to the solution of our modern transport problems? Would any hon. Member supply that information if it is available? I spent quite a lot of time this morning looking for such pamphlets, but I failed to find one that would elucidate this very vexed question.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West also mentioned the unsuccessful meetings we have had when we have protested against this particular Bill—the road "sell out," as we call it. I would remind everybody that during the last three months we have had some wonderfully successful meetings of protest against the terms of this Bill. I hope the Government will take note of the protests which have been publicised all over the place in regard to the wrong being done to a co-ordinated transport system by the terms of this particular Measure.
I shall address myself to two features of the Bill which I regard as of major importance, and I shall do so rather abruptly in order to save time; but I hope the Minister will pay careful attention to the points I am going to raise.
First, I am very concerned about the probable position of the 80,000 employees of the road haulage undertaking. As we visualise the operation of the Bill, we can see the re-creation of innumerable small road haulage units. Within these small units I cannot see the possibility of utilising the services of even the majority of those 80,000 employees. If these men are to lose their jobs and pension rights, I want to know whether the Minister feels that the part of the Bill dealing with compensation for pension rights is sufficiently wide and if the financial resources are sufficiently great to meet this obligation, which must of necessity be met, to be fair and just to the present employees.
It is very seldom that a small transport unit encourages the employment of a prominent trade unionist. It is usual for these small units to be run by the owner, his brother or brother-in-law, with grand-

mother on the board of directors. It is a family concern, to the exclusion of the normal employee, and in those circumstances I can see a great injustice being done to the employees of the Road Haulage Executive.
The Minister should examine that particular problem very carefully, because the position that will arise will be unique. Previously employees have been collected from small units and drafted into the nationalised undertakings, but on this occasion, for the first time in our industrial history, we are to have a reversal of that process with the mass of the 80,000 employees being drafted back into small units which usually cannot take them into their employment because of the nature of their organisation. There is a possibility that 20,000 or 30,000 men will be displaced, apart from the number of railway employees who have been drafted into the road haulage organisation.
The financial Clauses affecting compensation will most certainly not meet a position of that kind. It is a matter of great dread to the people employed by the Road Haulage Executive, and when the Minister quoted the example of 12 or 13 Road Haulage Executive employees applying for a job as driver of a lorry, I could quite understand why they did so. Everybody understands how these men will try to keep their jobs under the circumstances which threaten them at present, but to do justice to probably 20,000 men will be a great difficulty. I am quite sure that no one in this House would like to see these men penalised for what, I think, is a terrible mistake which is being made in road haulage.

Mr. Jack Jones: As a trade unionist of long experience, would my hon. Friend agree that if the Bill goes through the employer of a small unit would himself be glad to get into the union?

Mr. Harrison: Of course there is a possibility of that. What I am trying to visualise is the fact that these 80,000 employees will have difficulty in finding a job in the capacity of a driver, organiser, or even a maintenance fitter, as they are employed at present. I hope that the Minister will pay serious attention to the possible plight of these 80,000 employees. Never before have we had to face a position of that description. It is cer-


tainly one of difficulty and, possibly, of pain to the employee.
Within the Bill there are references to the docks, harbours and inland waterways. In that branch of the industry there are 21,000 employees. I wonder if we can imagine the feelings of these men when they read of the provision for the future of their industry and when they read that the Transport Commission must not extend its operations beyond those existing in 1947. When they read that no provision is visualised in the Bill for expansion or development and that the Transport Commission, instructed by the Government, under present circumstances are to draw a strict line prohibiting any further dock or inland waterway development, what must be the feelings of those 21,000 employees of the authority? I cannot imagine that they will be very happy about their prospects.
Something ought to be done to develop one of our cheapest forms of transport, provided by inland waterways, docks and harbours. I know that under present circumstances, with the shrinkage of trade, it is possible to get away with this restriction on development, but if we imagine a more prosperous industrial condition in the country I am sure we shall see that we would soon be faced with the urgent necessity to do something about improving dock, harbour and waterway facilities.
I did not consider that the terms of compensation can be met unless something is done and the future of the 80,000 road haulage employees and of the 21,000 employees of the docks and harbour authority—100,000 men and women—is jeopardised by the terms of this Bill. The future of inland transport is jeopardised by this Bill. I hope the Government will think again—they have thought many times between the presentation of the White Paper and of this Bill—and ask themselves if we in this country can afford such an expensive Measure at the present time.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. J. R. Bevins: I do not propose to follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. J. Harrison) in detail, although I hope to touch upon one or two of them in the course of my speech.
I wish to deal with two of the major criticisms of this Bill which so far have

not been adequately answered. It has been said by a number of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and also by one of my hon. Friends, that there will be a substantial loss of money on the re-sale of British Road Services and equipment. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) yesterday—in a speech which seemed to me to diffuse rather more gloom than light—took the view that the Treasury would be saddled with what he called an unknown liability which is probably going to be very large.
He produced no evidence in support of that contention, and later in yesterday's debate the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) was rather more categorical and referred to the fact that, in his judgment, this transaction would cost the taxpayer £33 million. Like the hon. Baronet, he adduced no evidence in support of his claim, but by this afternoon the figure had fallen to £20 million, which was the amount ascribed to the transaction by the right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes).
Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) made what I thought a quite remarkable observation on this criticism. His actual words were:
the recent admission that the Commission through the Disposal Board is to be required to sell the road haulage undertakings at a price materially below what it paid for them when it brought them is an admission that when a public authority buys private undertakings it must pay a certain price, and, under the Tories, when a public authority sells undertakings, it must sell them at a lower price.
He went on:
That is the admission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1434–5.]
It is quite true that it is an admission, but it is not the admission the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is. In fact, it is an admission that the values of the acquired undertakings have, since 1947, withered to a very large extent, and when right hon. and hon. Members opposite complain that Her Majesty's Ministers are wantonly sacrificing the interests of the taxpayers, I submit that they are employing the wrong tense. The interests of the taxpayers have already been very largely sacrificed in this matter following the passage and the operation of the 1947 Act, and one of the principal purposes of this Measure is to prevent those losses from accumulating and to cut the taxpayers' losses.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Is what the hon. Member has just been stating the reason why the Tory Party fervently desired that a higher price should be paid at the time and pressed with fervour for a higher price?

Mr. Bevins: No, I do not think it has anything to do with the attitude of the Tory Party at the time. I am discussing at this moment the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the re-sale proposition.
Before the Opposition talk so glibly and so audaciously about losses which are to come, hon. Members opposite ought at least to look back a little and consider some of the losses which have already been incurred as a direct result of the 1947 Act. The House knows perfectly well that on operation, when one takes into account central charges, there has been a loss in the past three years of £4 million on British Road Services. The House also knows—it has never been disputed on either side—that the loss by taxation to the Exchequer as a result of this transaction has aggregated at least £10 million during the last three years.
It does seem to me that the talk one hears about the probable loss on re-sale is apt to be rather exaggerated. So many seem to assume that those people who bid for vehicles and equipment will merely opt to pay for the value of the physical assets themselves. That seems to me to be a quite absurd method of approach. Firms—business people—who contemplate bidding for units of British Road Services are not going to buy vehicles or equipment for the sake of gazing at them. They are going to buy them only for the chance of carrying traffic in those vehicles, and to the extent that that is likely, I suggest to the House, their bids are most likely to include a not inappreciable element for the goodwill.
Next it is asked: Why must the Government do this wicked thing, as hon. Members opposite would have us believe it to be, when British Road Services appear to them to have got over their teething troubles and are now a more efficient organisation than they were two or three years ago? I was reading somewhere the other day that during, I think, the year 1950 the average loaded vehicle mileage of the British Road Services

vehicles on long distance was about 50 miles a day. I hope that no right hon. or hon. Gentleman opposite will ask me for the authority for that statement, because, of course, it was made in the pamphlet written by the hon. Member for Perry Bar (Mr. Poole), who believes, as I do, that no private haulier in this country in the long-distance field would ever have been satisfied that that was a fair performance.

Mr. Cecil Poole: Not 50 miles a day; but the average haul was 50 miles a day—a different thing.

Mr. Bevins: The average loaded haul. I think that was what I tried to convey. It seems to me that the Opposition are rather belatedly discovering that while it was easy to expropriate long-distance haulage it has in practice been a good deal less easy to keep the business the acquired undertakings had in the past.
We have had a lot of discussion in this debate of the vexed question of the C licences, but it is not in dispute—it has never been disputed by the British Transport Commission, and I do not know that hon. Members opposite have any right to cavil at it today—that one of the principal reasons why British Road Services have not come up to expectations—certainly not the expectations of right hon. Gentlemen opposite—is that so many firms which previously gave their business to long-distance haulage undertakings have refused to do so since the undertakings were acquired in 1947.
That has been admitted in the 1950 Report of the British Transport Commission. But it seems to me that when one starts to discuss why B.R.S. have been a less successful venture than the party opposite hoped it would be, when one starts to discuss the reason for the large increase in the issue of C licences, hon. Members opposite speak with entirely different voices. They are at sixes and sevens not only about the reasons for the increase of the C licences, but also about the facts themselves.
For example, the hon. Member for Perry Barr, in his elegantly styled pamphlet, "Job Lots for the Boys," issued, I think, by "Tribune," attributed the large increase in C licences to the fact that private business firms were sabotaging the British Transport Commission.


The more orthodox Members of his own party, such as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), say it is due to the squadrons of milk floats and chimney sweep vans which have invaded the roads during the last few years. That was what the hon. Member was telling this country in his disarming fashion a few months ago. If his manner were not so disarming he would not be able to tell so many such stories.
Yesterday we had a speech by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), who discovered yet a third line of argument in this field. He said that the greatest demand for C licences had been before the year 1948. It may well have been so, but that in itself proves nothing, and the question is, why is it so many of the firms which previously were happy to give their traffics to the private long-distance hauliers are no longer prepared to give them to B.R.S.? I think that question answers itself on the basis of the evidence, on the basis of the statistics.
One very brief word on the question of the levy. The levy, ever since the White Paper was issued, has been derided by the party opposite, and, indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South said, by certain organs of opinion which from time to time support the party to which I belong. The right hon. Member for East Ham, South referred to it today as outrageous.
We have been repeatedly asked—the Government have been repeatedly asked—why should the C licence holder of all people have to pay this levy? I think it is rather a curious thing that, as a general rule, the people who ask that question are the very people who accuse the same C licence holders of being the saboteurs of British Road Services. They ask: Why on earth should the C licence holder have to pay the levy to offset the loss on the sale of British Road Service vehicles? I think it was Bismarck who said that politics are not a very exact science—and I suppose that hon. Members opposite should be aware of that, as well as hon. Members on this side of the House.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: Never mind what Bismarck said. What do the Tories say?

Mr. Bevins: I do not pretend for one moment that there is a great deal of logic in the proposed application of the levy. Why should there be? [Laughter.] Just a moment. I believe that the C licence holder today is not pleading for logic. What he is pleading for is mercy from the Government. The effect of this levy is to give the C licence holder the right to use a more efficient system of transport if he so wishes; but, if he does not wish to use the more efficient form of transport which the Government are trying to provide, at least he will remain free to carry his own goods.
Hon. Members know perfectly well what the attitude of the party opposite is to the C licence holders. The hon. Member for Perry Barr has been conducting guerilla warfare against the C licence holders continuously during the last two years. He believes he is right. I do not. But he is entitled to his point of view. I used to believe at one time that the hon. Member for Perry Barr was a voice in the wilderness, but, having listened to the speeches of several hon. Members opposite in this debate, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that in fact the hon. Member for Perry Barr is speaking for the whole of the party opposite, and I have discovered that during the last few days that he is in exceptionally good company—

Mr. Poole: The Prime Minister is with me.

Mr. Bevins: —because in a recent book, "Socialisation of Transport," published by Constable, written by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) in 1933—not so long ago—the right hon. Gentleman said:
When the stage is reached when we can offer such an unrivalled service"—
he is talking about nationalisation—
to the manufacturer and the farmer we shall be justified in saying of concerns providing any transport for the carriage of goods, that they are no longer justified in doing so.
That was the view of the right hon. Gentleman in 1933, and I believe that is the general view of the party opposite. Therefore, I say that the levy, in so far as it applies to the C licence holders, is a perfectly justifiable instrument.
I can perfectly well appreciate the irritation of Her Majesty's Opposition when it sees Her Majesty's Government intro-


ducing this Bill. After all, this goes rather deeper than normal political warfare, because in one sense Her Majesty's Government are taking one of the gospels out of the Socialist bible and ripping it up. It is well to remember that for a long time Members of the party opposite believed that the socialisation of transport would be one of the finest examples of public ownership; they believed it would be one of the shining lights of socialisation. This was not a case that was hurriedly or hastily worked out. It was meticulously worked out over a long period of years, and it was believed that the case for the nationalisation of this important service was unanswerable. It was even believed that it would be so successful that it would soften the stony hearts of some of my more reactionary colleagues.
Perhaps I might conclude by quoting the words of the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition on that very subject. He said, at the end of this book in 1933, speaking of the benefits of the socialisation of transport:
I anticipate that the benefits may be summarised as follows: that the industry itself will be more efficiently and economically conducted; consequential advantages will follow to the public; further, that the quality of the service will tend to advance and the charges will tend to fall.

Mr. D. Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman deny the fact that, in comparison with the products of private enterprise, railway rates have risen less since 1945? Take steel, or any of the manufactured articles. Take timber and compare the increase of that with transport.

Mr. Bevins: What the hon. Gentleman says may well be true.

Mr. Jones: Is it true?

Mr. Bevins: Here we are not dealing with that fact. We are dealing with the prophecy of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South. His peroration, which I think is worth reading in this debate, was this. He referred to 10 advantages which would flow from the nationalisation of transport, and his concluding words were these:
These are great advantages, and there are no doubt others. They are not to be scorned. The work done even to this point is well worth doing, but I entirely agree that we shall not have reached the promised land.

It is because we have not reached the promised land that the Government are treading a different path.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Holt: I am sure that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Bevins) will excuse me, as I am the only spokesman for my party, if I do not follow him in detail.
Yesterday the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), going over the preparatory work prior to this Bill, suggested that the Conservative Party had introduced a novel and most interesting and fair method of political and public discussion in the last six months. I am sure that it does the ingenuity of the noble Lord great credit, but I can hardly think that he will consider that it is a very acceptable suggestion. We must realise how this Bill came about, and, although nobody objects to wide political discussion before a Bill comes even to Second Reading here, I do not think that is any defence for having produced a White Paper, and even the first Bill in the form in which it was produced.
The Government were committed to the de-nationalisation of road haulage, and I think it was only when they got down to studying that problem that they realised they could not do it without examining, and, in the end, bringing in some very revolutionary ideas with regard to the whole of our transport system. While the first effort in the White Paper and the first Bill did point roughly the way, it seemed a very faithless and hesitant effort. It seemed to me rather like a kind of weathercock in a gusty wind; it went generally in that direction, but it was very difficult to see whether, in the end, it would be a really sound competitive transport system for the country, or whether it would be a mass of compromises.
With that former end in view, the Liberal Party made a statement of its views of the main objectives that we should have in mind in producing a new transport policy. While I am not suggesting in any way that this has vastly influenced the Government, I think we have a right to point out that it was possibly the first and probably one of the few constructive criticisms of this Bill. I must say that I think the Minister himself has some cause for complaint to the


Press. The Press gave his White Paper and the first Bill a most appalling smack. It was thoroughly rejected in all quarters. But I think that the Press themselves had not wakened up to the possibilities and in this respect I regret very much the attitude of the Liberal Press, which, I think, has been most disappointing until quite recently in offering just destructive and not constructive criticisms.
I would mention, in particular, the "Manchester Guardian," which, until Monday of this week, has offered hardly a single constructive suggestion to improve this Bill. It has rather seemed to me as if some of the leading articles were written by a rather irascible old gentleman who was sitting on the fence and was very offended at the idea that he would soon have to decide on which side of the fence he must come down.
Furthermore, I think that some explanation is still required from the "Manchester Guardian" of the way in which it presented to the public the case of the chambers of commerce.

Mr. Mellish: Why not write them a letter?

Mr. Holt: Perhaps they will read it in HANSARD.
The "Manchester Guardian" and other Liberal papers are sometimes—I am sure in the friendliest manner and with the best intentions—a little critical of the activities, or alleged inactivities, of the Parliamentary Liberal Party, and I am sure they will accept these criticisms from a friend in the way in which we accept theirs.
We did try to offer some assistance in pointing out the main features of the road we should pursue, and it appears that pernicious levy in relation to the support of the railways has been dropped, that there has been a very important improvement of freedom for charging for the railways, and a date fixed for the lifting of the 25-mile limit restriction.
There is something which I should like to know about charging. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South raised this matter yesterday, but I do not think that it has been thoroughly cleared up. Do the Government really intend, in their decentralisation, to give fairly reasonably-wide control over the charges? Are they going just to decentralise administration regionally, without

giving some decentralised control over the charges? I think that this is a most important matter, because I do not see how the railways can stand up to the competition which they will get unless they are given this freedom in decentralisation.
We did say earlier, in August, that in the interests of efficiency the Government proposed to decentralise responsibility only on the side of the provision of railway services, but ultimate efficiency depends as much upon efficient charging as upon efficient production and, therefore, there must be some real measure of decentralisation of responsibility for charging as well as for the financial results achieved.
I do not want to spend more than a moment or two on my next two points, but I suggest that great thought must be given to the question of speeding up reorganisation and the proposals for bringing into effect the new arrangements for charging. It is suggested in some quarters that flexibility for charging cannot take place until a new scheme has been prepared and that that will take two or three years. I suggest that that difficulty has in some way to be overcome.
The Minister, from the beginning, has kept an open mind, but I hope that some hon. Members behind him, who have already shown their keenness for a really competitive system, will support him, and prevent him from being overcome by pressure groups from wherever they may come. I felt yesterday, when the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) was speaking, that there was some pressure from the coastwise shipping people which might not be entirely healthy.

Mr. Mellish: Do the Liberal Party believe in a competitive system in which there is no licensing at all, and where anyone, if he wants to, can go out and buy a lorry and ply it in any part of the country?

Mr. Holt: I shall come to that matter later; and I shall try to state a case as briefly as possible.
There are two or three other things which I want to mention before coming to the most important part of my speech. One is that I think that Clause 15 in the old Bill was better than that in the new Bill. Allowing people outside, in-


cluding the Coal Board, to have a say in the railway organisation, is, I suggest, a lot of nonsense.

Mr. Mitchison: Clause 15 in the old Bill and Clause 15 in the new Bill deal with different matters. Which is the hon. Member talking about?

Mr. Holt: I am talking about the one which refers to re-organisation of the railways. Clause 15 in the new Bill is not as good as the particular Clause in the old Bill dealing with that matter, whichever one it may be.
Clause 18 (2, e) is also a new element in this Bill, and I am not at all sure that it is necessary for this House to secure publication of maximum charges. I have a feeling that this was something left over from the monopoly idea. After all, responsible businesses of many kinds in this country, which have to price all their articles and which have to sell those articles to other people, have very varying practices, but, on the whole, they find that it is in the interest of their consumers that they should let them know what those prices are. It is my view that, even if the Government do not secure the publication of railway charges, in point of fact the railways would publish them.
Clause 20 may be all right for the protection of the consumer, but I think that Clause 21 is rather dubious. It might work out in practice, but it might be used for vested interests, outside to interfere with what, I suggest, is the central purpose of this Bill.
There are two other small matters which I should like to mention. Clause 14 (8) has reference to the London Transport Executive, and I press on the Government that they should consider making a new and separate statutory board for London Transport, along the lines of the old London Passenger Transport Board, and that the same thing should apply so far as the docks and inland waterways are concerned. All the reports that I have had indicate that the Executive has done a very good job, and I think that its activities would be greatly facilitated by it being made a separate statutory body.
I hope that the Home Secretary, in winding up tonight, will say something more about the disposal of road haulage. I feel that this is one of the trickiest parts

of the whole Bill. There is no question of principle involved; it is a question of the best method of achieving what is an agreed objective, and, so far as my party is concerned, I am sure that they accept that, if the Bill is to become law, this part of it should be made to work smoothly and with the least upset to the country. I do not agree with some of the suggestions made by the British Chambers of Commerce. But I think that suggestions in regard to this matter are worthy of the closest examination.
I understand the Road Haulage Executive is divided, first, into divisions, and that those divisions are then divided into districts. The divisions, I understand, are accountancy units, and could, in a very short time, be actually formed into limited liability companies, with the Transport Commission holding the shares. I believe that it is quite reasonable that those should be broken down into districts. There are some 32 districts, the largest having about 1,800 vehicles, and the smallest 190. This may not provide such small units as are envisaged in the Bill, but I suggest that that does not matter very much, and that this system would provide the best price for the Government, because anyone buying would better appreciate what he was buying, and it would possibly enable the Government to do away with the levy, and without any cost to the Treasury.
I suggest that this method is quite all right if the Government will do away with the A, B and C licensing system. There has been a lot of talk on this side of the House that that system is still privileged and not really competitive. I am advocating the one thing that is left out so far which will make the set-up a really competitive system. Hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House should try to keep an open mind on the matter and not allow themselves to be governed by their prejudices about what they think happened in 1930.

Mr. Mellish: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? This is a very important matter.

Mr. Holt: I will develop my argument first. If we stop discrimination against entry into haulage, we can cease to worry whether transport units are large or small, for the free market will work upon them


and of their own accord they will reach their correct size. But while there is discrimination against individuals, the free market cannot work properly. If we permit entry we can lose our fear of a railway monopoly. If anyone can buy a vehicle and start up anywhere, we can forget the railway monopoly. As a result, Clauses 20 and 21 could be dispensed with.
Hon. Gentlemen sitting around me will immediately say that the course I am suggesting will lead to chaos like that of the inter-war years and to cut-throat competition. But no advocate of a free market, whether it be in transport or in any other industry, suggests—if some people think it was suggested before, they are making a mistake—that such a market can work properly today, in the interests of the community and in the interests of the consumer or the producer, unless it has proper rules and regulations.
That is very different from having discrimination against entry. If we have a pricing system which rises or falls according to the cost, which will happen under the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"]. If hon. Gentlemen have not seen it I suggest that they read the Bill.

Mr. D. Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me where I can find in the Bill any agreed charges scheme for road haulage?

Mr. Holt: There is no question of an agreed charges scheme. I did not say that. I said that prices would rise or fall, according to the cost.
At the moment, the cost to the railways in the case of some of the mainline passenger expresses is one-third of a penny per mile. Thus, a third-class return ticket from Manchester to London should be 10s. 6d. on that basis, but it is about 52s. 8d. We have to put up with that today because the railways are not allowed to pass on to the consumer the potentialities of the lower cost of certain services because they have also to carry services in other parts of the country which people really do not want and for which they are not prepared to pay the economic price.

Mr. Poole: Is the hon. Gentleman's conclusion that the rural population, in which the Liberal Party claims to have such a deep interest, should pay about 9d. a mile for its transport so that the

people living in the suburbs can travel for about one-tenth of a penny per mile?

Mr. Holt: If the hon. Gentleman would read the Transport Commission's Report for 1950 he would see the sort of charge which is made by buses running in the country. There is very little difference.

Mr. Poole: The hon. Member was speaking about the railways a moment ago.

Mr. Holt: Must a railway service be provided to cover a country district in which only a few families live in an area of many square miles? Surely it is fantastic that we should continue such services at great cost to the remainder of the travelling public. The proper type of transport must be used in appropriate districts, and we must bring a little common sense into the transport system.

Mr. Poole: We should be glad to hear a little common sense.

Mr. Holt: As to the suggestion about cut-throat competition, as we have heard so often from the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers), it is all a question of supply and demand. The situation in the thirties occurred because there was a recession in trade. The Salter Report stated that everybody in the road haulage business and in other transport undertakings was going bankrupt and that it was a very shocking state of affairs, but the Report did not show that the rate of bankruptcy in transport was any higher than it was in cotton, steel, coal or any other industry. The truth is that there was a severe depression which resulted in there being a far larger supply of transport facilities than there was demand, and in that state of affairs one gets cut-throat competition.
I ask hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House to realise that there is now a different state of affairs. When everybody in the country is wedded to trying to find a method of retaining full employment, it is nonsense to ignore that new and very vital feature. It has a very vital effect on the working of a free market economy.
As for so-called chaos, I will go as far as is reasonable with any hon. Member on this side of the House who wants to ensure that the small men in the transport industry and the few people they


employ do not have their conditions impaired by what will happen. We can make rules to ensure that. If any hon. Member questions that, I would remind him of the London taxicab system, where there is no discrimination against entry. Anybody can apply for a taxi-cab licence and a driving licence, and the difficulties he will encounter are common to everybody, but otherwise there is no discrimination against entry. Yet there are masses of rules and regulations governing what taxi-cabs and their drivers may do.
We ought to scrap the A, B and C licences and substitute for them a certificate of fitness to apply to all, whether they ply for hire and reward or whether they seek merely to do their own work, and there should be attached to the certificate conditions relating to hours of work, length of time of driving, a fair wages clause, the safety of the public, and anything else which it is thought desirable to incorporate in it which is for the benefit of the community as a whole.
It may be argued by hon. Members opposite that Clause 8, dealing with the procedure when a person wishes to take out a licence for a road haulage vehicle, is so different from the provision in the 1933 Act that there is now no point in bothering about it, but I suggest that, for the reasons which I have given, it is still a very bad principle and that we should get rid of it. There are many practical problems to be dealt with in this direction, and I ask the Minister to consider carefully this matter and agree to insert a date in the Bill, 1954 or 1955, by which the A, B and C licensing system will be abolished.
I feel that this Bill must be judged, when it becomes an Act, on whether it will institute and maintain continuously in being a transport system throughout the country and around the coast which meets the needs of the people, subject only to their willingness and ability to pay for it, and which will pass on to them the lower cost potentials of the different types and qualities of transport by road, rail, canal and sea.
As far as the Liberal Party are concerned, they will support the Second Reading of the Bill in order to affect improvements and will direct their efforts in Committee to this end. If the Bill eventually does what I have suggested,

then, in all seriousness, I say that it will be one of the most significant pieces of legislation of this century. [Laughter.] Hon. Members on this side of the House may be amused about that, but I notice that they have produced a mass of damaging literature. There is, in particular, a yellow book called "Socialist Union."

Mr. Mitchison: We did not produce the "Manchester Guardian."

Mr. Holt: It would be greatly to the Labour Party's credit had they done so.

Mr. Mitchison: And it would be greatly to the Liberal Party's credit if they followed it.

Mr. Holt: "Socialist Union" has, I believe, the support of the Leader of the Opposition. There is no question as to the mental and intellectual difficulties that the party is under. It realises full well where central control and nationalisation will lead it.

Mr. Percy Collick: Which party is the hon. Member referring to now?

Mr. Holt: They know perfectly well they are very frightened about the power that is being taken away from this Parliament and put into someone else's hands, and I suggest that if this Bill goes through and is amended in the way it should be it will not be a millstone around the neck of the travelling public but will be a milestone in the history of transport in this land.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Poole: If I had to choose between the Tory Government's proposal in this Bill and the proposals of the Liberal Party, as stated by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt), then I am with the Tory Party. I have never heard, in the whole of the time that I have been associated with the industry, such a nonsensical approach to the problems of transport.
To suggest at this hour and in this year of our Lord, after a Coalition Government, in which the Liberal Party played a prominent part, had brought in the licensing of road vehicles in 1933, that we should now abolish all forms of licensing, and that anybody who could buy a lorry could go out and engage in transport, is absurd. If that is Liberal transport


policy it is little wonder that the party have lost the services of their former deputy leader in this House, and that their support in the country is so microscopic that at the next Election it will probably disappear completely.
With those few introductory words I should like to congratulate the Minister on his birthday, and in particular, of course, about what I think he must agree is his most valuable birthday present, the letter from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. The only difference between the right hon. Gentleman's birthdays and mine is that first, I do not get any presents, and, second, if I do I do not know they are coming. He knew yesterday that this letter was coming, because he told us to look at the Press today to see it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was mistaken in saying that the letter arrived today. It arrived yesterday. I thought my speech was very long, and that is why I did not read it out yesterday. It was read instead by my hon. Friend today.

Mr. Poole: It is obvious that the Minister was born a day too late. He should have been born yesterday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why was he born at all?"] I am not allowed to make any of my valuable points, because I was going to say what my hon. Friends have expressed so well, that, after reading this Bill, it is a great pity that he was born at all. We appreciated the right hon. Gentleman's Second Reading speech on this Bill very much more than his previous speech on the subject. He was very much less arrogant and very much more mellowed. I think his travelling around, as he described it, has shown him that there is a great deal to be learned about the transport industry. I am sure he is realising there is a great deal which he has to learn, as all of us have to learn, about this industry.
I am flattered by the great attention given by hon. Members opposite to my little pamphlet "Job lots for the boys." I am very glad that they have read it, and I only hope that, having read it, they will mark, learn and inwardly digest it, but I doubt whether I shall get many converts from that side to my point of view.
I was interested in the Minister's eulogy of railway directors. He valued their

work more highly than I did, and I spent quite a time in the railway service. I have spent many years in this industry not only in road and rail, but sea, inland waterways, coastwise shipping and all forms of shipping. I learned the block telegraph system when I was 10, at the hands of my father, so that I started young in this industry. But I wonder whether the Minister includes his hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) in his tribute to railway directors. He made two requests to the Minister. He said, first of all, that he ought to drop much of this Bill. That was the opinion of a railway director who is the great expert in this House.

Mr. G. Wilson: Mr. G. Wilson rose—

Mr. Poole: No, in the interests of other hon. Members who wish to speak I hope I shall not be interrupted too much.
The hon. Member for Abingdon said that the Minister ought to drop a large portion of this Bill; and, secondly, that the further stages ought to be deferred until an inquiry had been held. I do not know whether the Minister is going to take any notice of those suggestions, but I have not a great deal of hope in that direction.
The only other Member about whom I should like to say a word is the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Yesterday he regaled us with a speech which was 50 per cent. a Tory Central Office brief and 50 per cent. Fabian pamphlets. It is a great pity that he does not read some of his own Tory Party pamphlets for a change; that is, of course, if he can get any. It is difficult to get the Tory Party's pamphlet on transport.
Last week I wanted to find the latest Tory pamphlet on transport, issued in May. I went into the Library and it was not on the file. It had gone, if it had ever been there. I said to the Librarian, "Ring up the Tory Central Office and get me a copy of that pamphlet, because I am sure they are most anxious that the Tory policy on transport should be known when their Bill comes before the country." The reply I got was, "It is not possible to obtain the pamphlet on transport policy. The only copy available is at the Conservative Political Centre." The trouble is, of course, that


the pamphlet does not accord with the Bill, so all copies of have had to be withdrawn. They had to be scrapped.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West asked us what we would do. One would think that the position were reversed; that we were the Government and that it was up to us to come forward with proposals; but if the hon. Gentleman likes I will tell him one thing that we would do. It is set out in this pamphlet of mine. I am sorry that the Minister stopped reading it when he did. He read from page 15, where I said:
Under nationalisation, the staffs saw little change.
I wish he had read on. He would have read one of the things that we would do and that we ought to do under nationalisation. I said:
We do not need to search among the old Etonians, the farmers' unions and the retired Army ranks to find men to run the transport industry. They are within its ranks and they have been there all their lives.
Had we put in charge of nationalised transport men who have spent all their lives in the industry I am satisfied that we might get a much better picture. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have never been against the ex-Minister of Transport, although I probably questioned him as much as any Minister in this House. I was very pleased with his speech today. I told him in the Tea Room that he reminded me of a footballer to whom we had given a free transfer list and then watched him score all the goals in the game for another team. He gave us a speech today which was one of the finest speeches on transport we have heard in this House. I only wish he had made the same sort of speech a couple of years ago when he was Minister of Transport.
I was very heartened to read the words of Mr. A. B. B. Valentine, who is a member of the London Transport Executive and is President of the Institute of Transport. He expresses a thought which has been in my mind for many years. Addressing the Institute—and these words are very germane to the Bill—he said that we were in danger of bringing into being a breed of rail men and a breed of road men, when what we really needed was a breed of transport men.
I have pleaded that transport should be considered as an industry. The Bill

can do nothing but divide the ranks of the industry into rail men and road men. It can do nothing else but set at each other's throats those two phases of the industry which ought to be complementary and ought to be linked with inland waterways and coastwise shipping. Transport ought to be an industry as such, and the Minister is doing a great disservice in making so permanent a cleavage by the Bill between the road and rail sides of the industry.
There is no justification for the Bill. The Minister has not sought to justify it, and neither has any hon. Member from the other side of the House. I challenge the Minister who will wind up the debate to tell us. Can he point to a single inquiry which has been directed into this industry since 1918 which has recommended anything else but the reverse of what the Government are doing in the Bill? Legislation ought not to be brought forward in this House on either the mere whim of the Minister, or financial contributions to a political party. If there have been inquiries into an industry and if committees have reported and made recommendations, legislation ought to take cognisance of those recommendations. The Bill does no such thing.
As a matter of fact, the Minister takes comfort from the letter from the Association of Chambers of Commerce. I was going to put into my text today something that the Chambers of Commerce said. It was:
We feel it unwise to allow a surgeon to perform an operation without regard to the anatomy of the patient.
That sounds like sense to me. I have been on the operating table a number of times during the past couple of years. I should not like to think that any surgeon had a go at me without some regard for my anatomy.
The Conservative Party have had the transport patient on the table four times in the last 12 months: in their Election announcements, which bear no relation to the Bill; in a White Paper, which was again widely different; in a Transport Bill which was printed, saw the light of day and then vanished into oblivion; and now the Bill. The patient has been on the table four times, the knife has been poised and the surgeons have been wondering just where they would cut this time.
Commissions reports and the recommendations of conferences and Select Committees have been available to them, but the physicians have said, "Never mind about the reports on the condition of the patient. Let's open him up. Let's cut somewhere and hope that some good will come of it." The recommendations are on the lines "Not knife, but nourish"; not that the patient should be slashed but that he should be strengthened. These have been the recommendations of every committee that has looked into this industry.
I have taken the trouble to look up what various people who ought to know something about this matter have had to say about this industry. Reference has been made to the noble Lord who co-ordinates transport and fuel and power. This is a serious matter. I want to know the position of the noble Lord in relation to the Bill. I remember when Ministers were on this side during the last Government. They often suggested that those on the Government side who differed to do the decent thing and get out, if they did not agree with the Government's policy. In 1943, the noble Lord, who is the co-ordinating overload for this industry, said:
I think we can claim that the main war-time problems of transport co-ordination have been solved. While the war-time problem is, of course, much simpler than the peace-time problem, owing to the unity of aim which animates us all, we must try to retain this spirit in peace.
I do not know whether his unity of aim has led him so far away that he is prepared to swallow what he said then. A year later, in 1944, as Minister of Transport in charge of co-ordinating transport at that time, he said:
Nevertheless, we must recognise that the existence of many small units in the road haulage industry vastly increases the difficulty of bringing about any permanent co-ordination between it and other forms of transport.
Does the noble Lord accept the Bill, and all the provisions of the Bill? Is he in harmony with the Minister of Transport about the Bill? If so, I am amazed how a man can so quickly forget the things in which he believed a few years ago and can swallow a Bill which is so diametrically opposed to the things that he has ever advocated.
What about the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, who sits on the Front Bench? He presided over a conference

which inquired into the industry. What were the findings? He subscribed to a report which said that nationalisation of the railways alone, leaving other forms of transport in other hands, would certainly not produce any real co-ordination of transport. He went on:
It appears to us"—
this is the present Minister of State for Economic Affairs speaking—
that without unification however it may be accomplished, no attempt to bring about complete co-ordination would be successful.
Is the Minister of State for Economic Affairs to continue to sit on that Front Bench?

Mr. Lindgren: Of course he is.

Mr. Poole: He should join the noble Lord, and they should both join Billy Smart's Circus as the finest contortionists the world have ever seen. I do not see how any man who really believes in the things he has said can swallow this Bill whole, eat it, and still not suffer any political indigestion.
What about the Prime Minister? He has now come to the fore as a great transport expert. It is true that he gets his millstones a little bigger than they are. He reduces them by one-tenth, then increases them 900 per cent. and even then does not get the right figure. He has made two speeches in two transport debates and his theme on both occasions has been the same.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Toxteth (Mr. Bevins) made some reference to my campaign about C licences. That campaign was not against the C licence holder as such but against the wasteful use of C licence vehicles with their empty mileage. I would free the C licence holder. I will go that far with the Liberal Party. [An HON. MEMBER: "It has gone."] No, he is still here. I would rather see all C licences free and allowed to ply for hire and reward than see them running about the roads empty, as they are today.
I asked, what about the Prime Minister? In each of his two speeches the theme was that the C licence vehicle was extravagant, wasteful, and that there ought to be no place for it. Therefore, when we heard that there was to be another Bill, I felt sure that C licence vehicles would be dealt with in the Bill. But where are they? There is not a word


about them in the Bill and the Prime Minister knew there would not be. Indeed, he never intended it, because Tory Party policy pamphlets for the 1950 and 1951 Elections both said that the present freedom of C licences would remain untouched. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] "Hear, hear," say hon. Gentlemen opposite, but they listened to the Prime Minister blathering about C licences on two occasions in this House. Why waste the time of the House talking about things he does not intend to do? It is making nonsense of the business of debate.
Let me put this point to the Minister, in all seriousness. Why does he seek to sell 40,000 nationalised Road Haulage Executive vehicles? After all, he and his hon. Friends have told us time and time again that this set-up is inefficient, extravagant, expensive, that it does not give the service to the industry that it should. In that case, why sell 40,000 when they can pit against them 900,000 private enterprise vehicles? Because there are 900,000 vehicles in the hands of the private enterprise operators. Why are they worried about 40,000? If they are half as inefficient as hon. Gentlemen opposite have said, they can be put out of business in a fortnight.
Of course, hon. Gentlemen opposite know they are not inefficient. They know that they dare not subject the private operator to the competition of the efficient nationalised road haulage vehicles. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not accept that, I invite them, during the Committee stage of the Bill, to take out of it the sale of the Road Haulage Executive vehicles and let us have real competition if they believe in it. But they only believe in competition which produces profit.
The contribution of the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) was not a plea for competition but for protection. They want competition when it is profitable, but as soon as competition ceases to be profitable they want the largest measure of protection. If the Government believes in competition, then let us have it between the 40,000 Road Haulage Executive vehicles and private enterprise, and we will show them who will be run off the roads quickly. That is the

challenge for the Government if they really believe in free enterprise and in competition.
I want to speak now about railway charges. Here I am on a much less controversial subject, but I want to utter a word of warning to the Minister. There are great dangers for the users of the railways and for the people employed on the railways in the obligation laid upon the railway companies by the Bill to publish merely their maximum charges.
Yesterday I asked the Minister a simple question, but one which is fundamental to this matter: whether he proposed to continue general merchandise classification. I hope we shall have an answer tonight on that point because, without that classification, any system of charges must be nonsensical. Does the Minister realise what he is doing when he makes available in the rate books of all the railway stations a figure which merely determines the maximum charge? Does he realise that he is throwing to the four winds of heaven the principle of impartiality in the allocation of rates? He is not freeing the railway companies of much. Indeed, this is not freedom at all because Clauses 20 and 21 fetter the railway companies more than they are at the present time.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: indicated dissent.

Mr. Poole: The Minister may shake his head, but the railway companies now have freedom to quote rates below even the exceptional rates. Since I was an invoicing clerk, way back in 1919 and 1920, they have always had freedom to quote rates below the exceptional rates. Last night, at dinner, I had a discussion with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, in the course of which I gave him a classic example which I will repeat for the benefit of the House.
The case in question occurred where the standard rate for road stone haulage from a quarry in Westmorland to Manchester was 9s. 4d. a ton and the exceptional rate was 7s. 6d. Yet a Westmorland quarry company could always get contracts for all the municipalities of Lancashire in competition with Lancashire quarry owners who had a haul of only 10 miles against 60 or 70 miles. Why? We had all the Lancashire owners coming up to see our railway rate books to discover if the secret was there. They found nothing in the rate books, because the rates for the Westmorland company


were special period rates for a special lot of traffic passing over a period of time which did not show in the rate book at all. That gave undue preference to the Warwickshire man.
What will happen under the system in this Bill? Farmer White will ask the railway stationmaster, if it is a rural station, what will be the charge for his potatoes from X to Y. He will be told, 12s. 6d. a ton. Farmer Brown, his next door neighbour, will ask what will be the price of his potatoes from X to Y. If Farmer Brown slips the stationmaster a couple of rabbits at Christmas, he will have a rate of 10s. 6d.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Not for two rabbits.

Mr. Poole: It is all very well for the Minister to shrug his soldiers, but that operates with protection now, and if there is on the rate book a maximum figure, how can the business man in Birmingham know what rate his competitor down the street will get for the carriage of his merchandise between Birmingham and London? Who will determine what will be the charges?
A plea was made from the liberal benches but the speaker must have known very little about railway rating because he made a plea for local autonomy for rates and charges. I have never heard anything quite so ridiculous. We shall have an area in the South of England where the ton mile cost of carrying commodities will be 1.6d. and another area in North Scotland where it will be 0.5d.

Mr. Holt: Is that objectionable?

Mr. Poole: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me how he will charge the commodity travelling from the South of England to the North of Scotland passing through six regions, each with differential rating? Perhaps he will sort that out and give me an answer when he has done so? Indeed, I will wait for him if he has the answer now.

Mr. Holt: The short answer to that is in a letter written by a gentleman who has been mentioned in this House by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) as a very careful student of transport matters. I am referring to Mr. Gilbert Walker who, in a letter in "The Times" about a week ago, gave

a far better answer to that question than any I can give him. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at that.

Mr. Poole: I will duly search the columns of "The Times" for the answer to that one. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was in the 'News-Chronicle' yesterday."] I should think that the "Manchester Guardian" probably has a better answer. In any case, the hon. Member ought to know that his proposition is nonsensical and is incapable of putting into practice.
How valuable will this concession be to the railways? If I read Clauses 20 and 21 aright, what will happen seems to me to be this. If the railway company, by virtue of this new freedom, charges enough to make the business pay, the customer can protest to them and can haul them before the Tribunal because they are charging too much. But if because of this new freedom they so reduce their rates—this, of course, is the purpose of the freedom—that they are able to attract traffic from the roads to the railways, the road haulier can take them before the Tribunal because they have been successful by lowering their rates and have attracted traffic from road to rail. Each of them will have the power to haul the railway company before the Transport Tribunal.
I suggest that the British Transport Commission had better have a permanent encampment on the pavement outside the Transport Tribunal's offices, because it looks as if they are going to spend a lot of time there when the Bill becomes law. The awful part about the matter is that the road haulier, now to be set free under the Bill, can lower his costs to whatever he likes, whether it is an economic figure or not, and can reduce the traffic carried by the railway; but the Transport Commission cannot take the road haulier to the Transport Tribunal and say, "You are under-cutting us and are carrying at an uneconomic figure." What is sauce for the Tory goose should also be sauce for the Transport Commission gander. I say that the Government ought to have second thoughts on this.
My last point concerns compensation. I asked the Minister, when he was speaking, if he would do something about this. I asked him to try to write the compensation provision into the Bill rather than deal with them by regulation, and he said that he was following the 1947 Act. I


suggest that that is not good enough. The situations are not parallel. Under the 1947 Act, we were taking in large numbers of employees, privately employed in small units, and bringing them into a large State-controlled undertaking. We made provision that regulations should be laid to provide for any hardship or loss which employees might suffer.
But that is not the position today. What happened in the 1947 Act is not a good illustration of what ought to happen now, when we are dispersing to the four winds of heaven all the employees of the Road Haulage Executive. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not of heaven, surely."] The slippery slope to the everlasting bonfire is probably the best description of the Bill. We are dispersing these men to thousands of individual employers throughout the country, and I do not think that this is a matter which ought to be dealt with by regulation.
The trade unions who cater for these men are deeply concerned about it. I ask the Minister in all sincerity whether, in the interests of harmonious relations with the trade unions, who, after all, he must work with and rely upon if the Bill is to work at all, to see whether he will not, at any rate, write into the Bill the broad provisions that would meet the case. Quite frankly, I must tell him that the trade unions do not trust the Tory Party to be the guardian of the rights of trade unionists in this matter.
With those remarks, I leave the Bill. As a very small boy I played the organ in a little Methodist chapel. One of the favourite hymns that we used to sing was "Forward be our watchword."

Mr. Ellis Smith: Sing it.

Mr. Poole: It is only on television that they sing these things. The Tory Party should sing that hymn, suitably amended, as their theme song for the Bill. Their first verse would run rather like this:
Backward be our watchword,
Jobs and profits joined;
Shun all human progress,
Always look behind.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole) has been enjoying himself. He has certainly been playing the organ with stops fully out for quite a time, and there were not a few discords

in his argument. My right hon. and learned Friend will, I am sure, deal with him later.
Those of us who yesterday and today have sat 10 hours listening to this interesting debate will, I think, agree that we have had some better speeches from the other side today than we had yesterday. Certainly, there has been some improvement. Most of them yesterday seemed to be based upon trying to prove that the so-called integrated transport system has been somewhat of a success. How on earth they can fool themselves with that argument, I really cannot imagine. I assure hon. Members opposite that there is no quarrel on either side with any other organisation, including the A.B.C.C., on the question of the service which they have been getting from nationalised transport.
I am not quoting those exceptional cases that we all know where traffic has been shunted about all over the country and has never reached its destination, although there are plenty of them, but there are several matters which have reached me in the last few days which need some explanation. It is no good hon. Members opposite saying that the transport system is giving industry and commerce a reasonable service or the service it wants. That may be true for some of the bigger users of transport, but it is not true of the smaller ones.
Yesterday, I heard quite a bit about this subject in an interesting communication from a well-known firm. If anyone doubts my word, I will show him the letter afterwards, but I do not want to mention the name of the firm publicly. They say:
… for the 12 months ended October 31, 1951, we had no fewer than 1,805 occasions when it was necessary to ask for proof of delivery.
That is from a reputable firm, known to many Members opposite. That extra work involved them in well over 300 submissions of claims. No one can talk about it as being a first-class service when that sort of thing occurs.
I have another instance from a firm in Leeds, who sent three consignments to Manchester, two of them weighing some hundredweights and one of them about four tons. Each of the three took over a week—one of them a fortnight—to Manchester.
I am also told of the dispatch of a consignment for Portugal, which left Leeds on 8th October by arrangement for the s.s. "Markland" at London Docks. The ship was closing on 12th October, four days later. When the firm were informed by their London agent that there was no trace of the bales, they sent telegrams and cables about it. The answer was that not merely the s.s. "Markland," but the next three ships sailed, and, after all, the consignment turned up miraculously exactly one month later.

Mr. Lindgren: Who lost it—the ship?

Mr. Hirst: No—this blessed nationalised transport. Another firm says:
The service today is simply atrocious. There is an entire absence of any sense of responsibility.…
They support what they say by a letter from the local representative, the acting district manager, who was concerned when they sent two consignments to Glasgow. The first took 10 days, and the second nine days, and there is no explanation for it except that someone is sorry. There are dozens of cases of this nature, and it is no use hon. Members opposite trying to tell us for party purposes that the transport system has been a success, because it simply has not.
One hon. Member said that our scheme would bring about the loss of employment for 20,000 people in the road services. That sort of thing is just creating despair for their own purposes; it is just not true. It is no use saying at the same time that those services have been economical. I know that the argument about various reductions in staff was used by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell), who yesterday spoke for 47 minutes. When it is all boiled down—the actual figure is about 75,000, not 80,000—there are about 12,000, as we know, engaged on administration and about 15,000 on maintenance and similar duties. I hope the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) will not mind my rounding off the figures.
If we look at the figures which the B.R.S. publish monthly, we find that, cutting out all drivers, drivers' mates, traffic clerks, foremen, supervisors, loaders and yardmen, there are left no fewer than 20 administrative and maintenance men for every 30 vehicles on the establishment

and 20 for every 27 vehicles constantly in operation. I think there is room for improvement there.
During this debate the Association of British Chambers of Commerce has been mentioned very many times. I am very glad that in the letter which we have had read out to us today it is made perfectly clear that certain newspapers in their headlines have been giving a very wrong impression of the Association's particular line of policy. I do not blame right hon. and hon. Members opposite for clutching at this not insubstantial straw in this debate when they have been so short of material for their speeches. The Association has certainly given them some opportunity for fun and games on this subject, but I want to clear this matter up completely.
This document, entitled "Transport Policy," has been produced by a comparatively small sub-committee of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. Many of its provisions have been quoted during this debate and one quoted by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) during his speech yesterday, and which prompted me to make an interjection, reads:
Moreover, the administrative difficulties and the functional defects likely to occur in such an upheaval are ill suited to the economic needs of the hour.
Another which appears on page 7 of the pamphlet says:
The functional part of the undertaking should be divided into at least regional units with full autonomy as companies governed by boards of directors. … Further subdivisions could be decided upon according to regional circumstances
That passage, I can assure the House, is one which has not been discussed by the individual Chambers of Commerce and does not represent the views of many of them. I want to make my personal position clear on the second one, which I think is particularly impracticable and is about the greatest nonsense ever put into a pamphlet.
I am not attacking right hon. and hon. Members opposite; I am attacking the policy of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce on that point. I would assure all hon. Members that in actual fact it has not been discussed by the vast majority of the Chambers of Commerce of this country who, I am certain, do not subscribe to it. If anyone


has gone into these troubles of lost consignments and long delays in transport—and do not let us fool ourselves that they have not occurred in great numbers, because they have—one finds that in nine cases out of 10 the answer is that in the present set-up the responsibility ends at a certain division and the next man takes over. The first one honestly has no control over the matter and has very little interest in what has happened.
The longer the journey is and the greater the number of areas concerned the more that goes on. When one tries to trace the consignment one has all these awful delays and difficulties, because of all the red tape of the organisation, in trying to find out what has happened to the goods. Quite often one receives hopelessly incorrect information.
I am not attacking the men who are running the show but the system which, unhappily, they have to run. In my position as President of Leeds Chamber of Commerce I will not support a policy which I know to be wrong. I assure the House that the quotations I have made from this pamphlet do not represent the wide interests of all Chambers of Commerce or of the movement. That ought to be made perfectly clear.

Mr. Steele: The hon. Member has spoken about consignments being lost. I should like to have the point made clear. Would he tell us whether these things happen on the railway or on long-distance road haulage?

Mr. Hirst: It was on mixed transport, and I honestly cannot give the actual degree in which it was mixed. This is a firm distributing all over the country, and the number of misplacements of consignments, of course, could not have occurred on any one aspect of transport. These things occurred on one type of transport or another. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not last year."] Yes, last year. It was necessary to ask for proof of delivery on 1,805 occasions in the case of one firm. [An HON. MEMBER: "Wrong labels."] They are a first-class firm who send out tens of thousands of consignments, and naturally they do not put wrong labels on their goods.
Go-slow tactics were mentioned in the gloomy and dispirited speech of my hon.

Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) yesterday, and the same subject has been mentioned today. Go-slow tactics do not represent the views of vast numbers of members of Chambers of Commerce. I have here a letter which I sent to the Minister after I had gone fully into this matter. The letter is fully supported by the Leeds Chambers of Commerce. On 5th August I wrote:
In regard to the disposal of transport units it is very strongly felt that the disposal machinery must be such that it operates without undue delay. …
Here, again, there is another aspect of this so-called pamphlet which, quite frankly, I cannot support. Having said that, with all fairness it must be made quite clear that there are a large number of sound suggestions throughout the pamphlet which I think are supported widely by industry and commerce. Many of them are very acceptable for us to consider in Committee.
These points should be made quite definitely to clear up what has been a running commentary in this debate—owing to a misfortune in tactics by the A.B.C.C.—by no means rightly based on the assumption of hon. Members opposite that there is a conflict between the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Transport Bill presented to this House—a Bill which wholeheartedly support.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. George Darling: I hope that the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) will forgive me if I leave him to fight his own battle with the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. I promise to be brief, and the hon. Member must be commended for the brief speech he made, for there have been some very long speeches in this debate.
I want to raise one or two technical questions which arise on the Bill and to make some comments on them. I want to begin with the railways. I hope that the Minister and other people who have been talking about the old-time boards of directors of the railways will drop the rather romantic and sentimental nonsense they have been speaking about them. There were several things wrong with the old part-time directorship system of management of the railways, and those of us who have worked on the railways


and suffered—I repeat the word "suffered"—from that ill-management do not want to see part-time directors returned into any kind of administrative posts.
The right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) made a point about the regional officers of the railways having part-time directors to help them. He rather suggested that if the regional organisation was built up in that way, with directors running the regions instead of officers of the Transport Commission, everything would be all right. If he is suggesting that local people might advise on local services and the needs of localities and so on, I think the idea of regional advisers might be pretty good. But much depends on what we mean by directing.
If they are to be directors to direct affairs, then I think the idea—the part-time local director or national director—is wrong. The type of director that we had in the railway service before nationalisation was not a person who gave his first loyalty to the railway service. His first job was to look after the main interest that he had, whether it was as a director of a bank, an insurance company, a business concern of some kind or another, a steel concern or a coal company. The railway companies came second in his loyalty.
These part-time directors are responsible for quite a lot of trouble in other industries where the directors themselves are not giving to the industries which they are running their complete attention and loyalty. Where there are divided loyalties we get all kinds of trouble. I could go on to develop that point from personal experience.
I am confident that the bad labour relations that existed on British railways in the inter-war years and before the First World War arose from the fact that most of the directors were not primarily concerned with the railways. The railways were their second interest. We had officials going wrong on labour relations, making decisions about labour relations both in collective negotiations and in individual cases, which led to very bad feeling on the railways, and I think that that bad feeling was the result of this divided loyalty at the top, and that the directors were not giving as much attention to the detailed administration of the

railways as the railways should have expected from its directors.
I am very concerned, too, about the proposal that after the Bill has been passed the Transport Commission should become a part-time body. This is a very retrograde and dangerous step, because in the Bill itself the Transport Commission, although it is to lose the road haulage business, is going to be in charge of one of the largest industrial undertakings in the world. Part-time people cannot be responsible, as the Bill suggests they should be, for overall policy, development, financial policy, and particularly for labour relations.
The negotiation of working conditions on the railways is a very important matter, and it is not a very easy matter. It does not concern only three trade unions. When I worked on the railways I was a member of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. I know that the industrial unionists around me think that that is a shameful thing, but I would point out that there are 38 craft unions in the shopmen's set-up which have got to be dealt with.
Labour relations are going to be very difficult, especially when this Bill has gone through and the financial provisions, which I think are going to cripple the railway service, come into effect. We must not forget that as increasing road competition makes the job of the Transport Commission more difficult they are going to ask either for increased freight charges or reductions in wages. There is no getting away from it. That is what we had in the inter-war years.
The disgracefully bad railway conditions in the inter-war years arose from the fact that the railways could not pay their way. It was not because the people who were responsible for running the railways wanted to keep worsening their conditions, but because they could not afford to buy equipment, modernise their signalling system, build modern locomotives, or carry forward the proposals for standardisation of locomotives and rolling stock or any other measures that would have made the railways more efficient and cheaper. They had not the income—and the reason for that was that they were suffering from road competition which was not properly restricted and regulated.
There is no denying the fact that the railway workers had to take some of the burden. Their wages were brought down and their working conditions were brought much below the level desired by the people responsible for running the railways. Are we going back to that situation? We have to bear in mind that the inefficiency of the railways today arises from the fact that they have not got proper equipment. In parenthesis, I would say that in the locomotive shed where I began my apprenticeship in 1919 we had equipment which had been put in in 1884 for the repair of locomotives. We were still using it, and it is still being used today. It was put there in my grandfather's time.
The railways cannot afford to carry through the renewal of equipment and improve the methods of operation and the handling of traffic and freight and so bring the railways up to the standard of efficiency and safety that is required. If we want to make the railways more efficient—and it is only by doing so that we can reduce transport charges—there are two alternative courses that can be followed.
We can either bring the road and rail services into one co-operative system, whether it is under national ownership or by regulations which bring the private owners of road haulage into association with the railways and compel them to have that association, or we can go on increasing rail charges or reducing wages in order that the railways can compete with unrestricted road transport.
If the suggestion is to be followed that the solution is to be found in a new system of rail charges—by giving the railways more freedom to make their own charges—the increased charges they are bound to make will inevitably fall upon those classes of traffic which have to go by rail, because competition with road transport will make it impossible for the railways to raise charges in respect of other traffic.
One of the biggest classes of traffic which comes into the former category is coal. It should not be forgotten that coal is our only source of power. We cannot run our industry without it. But if we are to compete in the industrial markets of the world and if we are to raise standards of living in this country, the cost of our industrial

power has to come down. The burden of this mix-up of transport is going to be borne, so far as the railways are concerned, by those classes of traffic which must be carried by rail, and coal is the prime example.
Although it is quite true that in Clause 20 a vague and very confused sort of protection is offered, that protection seems to me to be quite unworkable. A question arises here which has been mentioned by many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole). It is the unfairness that arises out of the proposition that road transport operators can complain to the Transport Tribunal against railway rates but the Transport Commission cannot complain to that Tribunal about road rates.
Another question arises here which, I think, ought to be answered. Suppose the Transport Tribunal, when road hauliers complain that railway rates have been reduced too much, tell the railways to increase their rates and lose the traffic, and suppose the railways refuse and also refuse to carry the traffic. Who is to carry it? As I see it, the common carrier provision has now gone. It seems quite wrong that we should get into this confused situation about railway charges.
Road-rail competition has to be regulated in some way. A few weeks ago at the Council of Europe, where this matter was raised on a proposition that a transport council should be set up by the Council of Europe, all this was said very clearly. The Assembly unanimously approved the proposition to set up a European Transport Council which would advise Governments on measures which should be taken to create a co-operative transport system in place of the existing competitive systems.
The proposal was put before the Assembly by the rapporteur of the committee which drew up the proposal, Monsieur Lemaire, who is not a Socialist but is a former director of the French State Railways. In the course of his speech—and this is what we approved in the Council of Europe—he said:
Competition in the field of transport is not genuine competition as in other sectors of industry.
He also said:
Cheap transport can only come as a result of harmonisation between road and rail transport.


All that is true, as every expert in road or rail transport knows. I think it hypocritical that Conservative hon. Members who attend the Council of Europe should vote for this harmonising of road and rail transport there, and then support the break up of that system in this country. I think it is sheer hypocrisy. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) is not present now, because I wanted to point out that his proposals repudiated the stand taken on this matter at Strasbourg by his noble Friend Lord Layton who, I understand, has something to do with the leadership of his party.
I suggest that the. House ought to accept the Amendment moved from our side, not as a wrecking Amendment—although of course that is its purpose at the moment—but to postpone the Bill genuinely and honestly for six months and during that period to accept the advice of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). I would go further and suggest that the whole Bill ought to be examined by a group of transport experts without any political prejudice in that group. Let them come forward and tell us what ought to be done to make our transport system more efficient and to put us on the road towards getting cheaper transport. Let our next discussion on transport in this House be not on the basis of this Bill, but on the basis of the experts' report.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I shall not, in the few minutes I have, follow in any detail the speech of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling)—except to say this, that I am puzzled why so many on the other side of the House seem to have heard of only one railway director, and that is my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). They constantly refer only to him, but there were others, of course. There was Lord Woolton and the present Minister of Housing and Local Government—both prominent railway directors.
I shall not follow that point further, but I think that the part-time railway director was a very useful individual who brought local interest into the railway service, although, of course, it was the railway managers who were in charge of the actual management, and not the directors. I have had some experience

of the railways, as some hon. Members know. The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) referred to the fact that he had served on the Great Western Railway. Well, so did I—in the legal department, dealing with the very sort of Acts referred to in Clause 19 of this Bill.
I have no doubt at all that those particular Sections of those Acts have had a very hampering effect on railway development, and I very much welcome this Bill which, for the first time, proposes to repeal those very ancient statutory provisions which ought to have been repealed at least 30 years ago. I think that by getting rid of those ancient provisions, which have for so long hampered the railways, we supply a much better answer to the railway problems than any attempt to integrate road and rail transport. I say that quite sincerely and from my own experience—and that, even if that policy of integration had had a chance to succeed, this answer, this novel answer which is for the first time put forward in this House, is a much better answer and one much more likely to be effective.
In my view, the attempt to integrate not only has not succeeded but could not succeed with the present facilities available to the British Transport Commission. I am assuming, of course, a particular meaning to the word "integration." Everybody has used this word in a different sense. I am assuming that the purpose of the 1947 Act was to set up a transport monopoly in this country whereby all the principal forms of transport were to be in one hand, and that under Government control.
That policy became, if that was the policy—and I assume it was—of the 1947 Act, quite impossible from the moment when it was decided in Committee, when the Bill was going through the House, that the C licence holders would not be nationalised; and the policy became a complete farce when it transpired that only a third of the omnibuses came under the control of the British Transport Commission—a third in the whole country, and a fifth outside London.
Lord Hurcomb and his associates were given an almost impossible task. They were told to integrate the public services of inland transport for both passengers and goods, and they were told to main-


tain the freedom of choice of service, and, nevertheless, to keep their organisation as one—which, apparently, was a statutory provision for Hobson's choice—and fourthly they were told that, taking one year with another, they had got to make the business pay. To do all that they were given only the railways, a third of the omnibuses and one in 20 of the lorries on the road, and it is not surprising that it was quite impossible to carry out their task.

Mr. D. Jones: They were not in control of a single bus undertaking. They were minority shareholders in every undertaking in which they had shares.

Mr. Wilson: Yes. I am talking of what happened since nationalisation. As a net result, at the present time the British Transport Commission has direct control of only a fifth of the buses outside London. It has a share interest in a great number of others, as the railways had. I was going to make that very point, because I was rather puzzled by some of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who seemed to regard Ribble Motor Services and the Midland Red Company as private monopolies. In fact, 42 per cent. of the shares of the Ribble Company are owned by the British Transport Commission, and in the case of the Midland Red, 50 per cent. of the shares are owned by the British Transport Commission; and in both cases there are B.T.C. directors on those boards, as there were railway directors before them.
At any rate, the general position in regard to buses is that of the 75,000 public service vehicles in the country the B.T.C. has direct control, through private negotiation or inheritance, of only 24,000—14,000 in Scotland and the provinces and 10,000 in London; the municipalities still have 21,000; and the private firms, big and small, have 30,000 between them.
As to the lorries, I put forward the figure of one in 20 of the lorries on the road. I think that is generous. I have arrived at that figure by assuming that there are 120,000 A and B licence holders and 850,000 C licence holders, and I have added to that 40,000 British Road Service vehicles, and 14,000 cartage and delivery traffic railway vehicles. On those figures, if we assume that there are 40,000 British Road Service vehicles

available, which there are not, as their available operating stock was given in the last Report as 35,000, it will be seen that only a very small minority of the lorries are, in fact, at the disposal of the British Transport Commission.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: On his argument, is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Commission ought to have had wider powers; that the Government ought to have given the Commission greater powers to get on with the job, which they apparently did not do?

Mr. Wilson: My argument is that the limited transport facilities the Commission were given made integration quite impossible.
I return the question to the Opposition. What are they going to do? Is it their policy to demand that C licence holders should be nationalised? If so, will they make that quite clear to, the Co-operative societies? Is it their demand to have complete nationalisation of all buses? If so, will they please make that clear to all the municipalities which still own 21,000 buses? If not, if that is not their policy, will they please regard this Bill in a rather more objective manner to see whether they cannot make it a Bill which will be of value? I have no doubt that it can be of great value, and that the removal of these ancient restrictions under Clause 19 can be of the greatest value to the railway service.
It is curious how such drastic provisions ever arose. In this age of jet propulsion, and so on, we rather forget the attitude of our ancestors towards the railways. We have only to look back at the art and literature of the days when the railways were developing to see exactly what our forbears thought of them. There is Turner's picture "Steam and Speed" depicting a railway engine crossing Wharncliffe Viaduct in a storm, chasing a hare and just about to run it down—the machine which is more powerful than the elements and faster than the fastest animal Turner knew.
There is Frith's picture of Paddington Station in the middle of the last century, with various incidents illustrative of the joys and sorrows of human existence, all revolving round the central portrait of a railway engine. Or there is Dickens's description in "Dombey and Son" of the


villain Carker flying across Europe in a post-chaise, his mind in a whirl, hearing nothing but bells and wheels and the sound of horses' feet galloping, and just before the death he was about to meet by being run over by a train, hearing what Dickens described as
a rush and sweep of something through the air, like Death upon the wing.
That is Dickens's description of a railway engine.
Our ancestors regarded the railway as a sort of Frankenstein monster which had to be hemmed about with all sorts of restrictions, and they evolved many restrictions which have long since become obsolete. We have allowed ourselves to be haunted by these ghosts ever since: we have had an exaggerated veneration of the powers and omnipotence of railway companies, and allowed these old provisions to continue for much too long. It is time they went.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Would it not be correct to say that all these restrictions the hon. Gentleman is retailing took place under a succession of largely Conservative Governments?

Mr. Wilson: I am not talking of the times of recent Conservative Governments. I am talking of 50 and 100 years ago. I am not blaming anyone in particular, I am saying that that was the attitude towards the railways, and that we have allowed unreasonable restrictions to continue too long. I believe that if these restrictions are removed now, it will give fresh impetus to British trade and a fresh opportunity for those employed in the railway service.

Mr. Collick: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as to the rights of private Members? A large number of hon. Members have been sitting on these benches almost continuously during this debate. They have a large number of constituents actively affected by this Bill, and they want to put forward points of view in order to protect their constituents. There are other hon. Members here who speak for large organisations of working people, whose livelihood and whose working conditions are affected by this Bill.
We sought, last week, to get from the Leader of the House extra time so that

the whole House would have an opportunity of adequately discussing this Bill. I submit for the judgment of the House that there has been no such opportunity, and I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, what steps are now open for private Members to take in order that they may have proper facilities for speaking on behalf of the constituents whom they represent?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): Some of the speeches have been very long speeches, and to that extent I am in sympathy with the hon. Member's point of view, but this is not a question for the Chair. It is a question for the House itself.

Mr. Collick: I would put it to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No point of order arises. This is not a question for the Chair.

Mr. Manuel: May I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to take the view of the House on this matter?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not the question before the House.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. I understand that Mr. Speaker and others occupying the Chair have some advantage in selecting, from lists before them, Members to speak.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That, too, is not a point of order. The selection of speakers is for the Chair.

Mr. Manuel: You are not likely to get away with it, you know.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I agree that on a matter of this kind one cannot raise a point of order, but what I want to ask you to do, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is to consult Mr. Speaker in order to try to avoid a repetition of this kind of thing. My hon. Friends are making no reflection on the Chair. They know the difficulties of the Chair. What we are saying is that, in future, this House when dealing with important questions of this kind—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There may be methods of raising that matter, but this is not the time to do it, nor is this the method.

Mr. Manuel: I have tried on several occasions to raise this matter and I can find no successful way of doing so. I am now asking you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, how I can raise it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Mr. Callaghan.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friends, and I think that they are joined in their protest by many silent hon. Members on the other side of the House. It is undoubtedly the case that I saw a veritable forest of hon. Members who wished to speak spring up from the other side about two hours ago. I am not sure whether they wished to support the Government or to attack it, but, at any rate, they wished to speak, and that, coupled with the large number of hon. Members on this side who wish to speak, seems to me to suggest that there was every justification for the request put forward last Thursday for a three-day debate.
I wish to register a protest on behalf of my hon. Friends that the time allowed for this debate has been far too short, in view of the magnitude of the issues with which we have to deal. I understand that the Home Secretary wishes to speak for 35 minutes, and I will, therefore, do my best to compress what I have to say into the remaining time allotted to me.
I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) and many other hon. Members, including the Minister, have attempted to divert our attention as much as possible from the road haulage to the railways aspect of the scene. It seems to me that while the changes which are proposed for the railways may very well be necessary, for they may help the railways, nevertheless it is very convenient for the Government to be able to draw across the trail of the sale of road haulage units at ridiculously low prices the red herring that they are to make some alterations in railway charges which, as the hon. Member for Truro said, should have been made many years ago.
I do not wish to under-rate the importance of what the Government are doing in the field of railway charges and the railway system generally. Indeed, I think it is of the utmost importance, and,

because I think it is important, that, to me, is another rather remarkable reason why the Government should have plunged into what they are doing in connection with the railways without making any proper inquiry into the effect of their proposal. My interpretation of it is that what the Government are doing in relation to the railways by altering the system of charges is transferring them from a public undertaking into a competitive commercial concern. If that is so, very substantial repercussions flow from it and it can mean very substantial changes in the whole pattern of our trade and industry.
What will happen if the Minister accepts an Amendment which may be put forward, to which he has promised to give sympathetic consideration, to provide that, as from the passing of the Act, the railways shall be relieved of the responsibility for publishing their charges or for giving equal treatment to all classes of users?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I said nothing of the kind. I must apologise for intervening in the hon. Gentleman's speech, but all I said was that the changes proposed in the Bill would not, under the Bill, come into operation until after a charges scheme had been imposed. I said that we were open to consider the possibility of bringing it into operation earlier, but that the Bill itself demanded the publication of maximum charges.

Mr. Callaghan: I really do not think that that intervention was worth while, in view of the shortness of the time left to me. I fully understand that the railways have to publish maximum charges and I fully understand that they have not to publish other charges. The only point is at what stage in time they will be free not to publish their charges and be free to give preference between one consumer and another as between one trader and another. This is a most important point.
Let us consider what will happen assuming that the Bill goes through. Presumably, from the day it becomes law the Railway Executive will instruct all its stationmasters to withdraw the rate book and it will no longer be possible for a trader to go to his local goods manager and say, "I wish to see the rate for carting this piece of merchandise from A to B and I also wish to know that you are


not offering me a rate which you will not offer to my competitor."
These have been very valuable safeguards for traders in the past, and yet at one fell swoop they are to be removed without inquiry of any sort. The Government have not a ghost of an idea what the consequences of doing this will be, and it is significant that it is only as the realisation of this begins to dawn upon the small traders that they are building up their opposition to the proposals contained in the Bill.
It may well be that there is a case for the proposals—I certainly think it ought to be argued—but I certainly do not think it ought to be decided perhaps on the basis of a Guillotine after half-an-hour's discussion in the House when the Closure is moved by the Government Chief Whip. This is perhaps the most important single change which has ever been proposed in the history of the railways. I observe that the hon. Member for Truro agrees with me. Do the Government really think they are discharging their responsibilities just by sticking this into the Bill at this late stage as a result of fresh consideration by the Minister without any inquiry at all? I warn him he is building up for himself consequences which cannot yet be clear to any of us.
I should like now to say that the small traders of this country will know whom they have to saddle with the responsibility if they find that all uneconomic services are cut out because the railways are not prepared to provide them; if they find they are unable to compete with someone who is able to offer large-scale commodities to the railways and get favourable terms with them. It is really a most fundamental change.
The real question that the Government have to settle on this—and I think they have settled it though in my view they have settled it much too rapidly—is, are we to give the best transport service possible for a given expenditure of money, or are we to say that the transport services are to be provided at the minimum cost to the provider of them? In other words, is the cost to the provider to determine what services are to be given, or is the social cost to the community to determine it?
These are two very different conceptions. In the Transport Bill the concept-

tion undoubtedly is that the social cost to the community—what the community can afford in the way of transport services—shall determine what shall be provided. Everyone knows we have argued almost ad nauseum in the House that the cost to the provider of transport, and therefore the cost to the man who gets the benefit of it, may be much lower than the real cost to the community. There is no way of distinguishing it.
What the Government have done is to say in this Bill—as they are entitled to do—"We are not going to provide the best possible service dependent upon the amount of the resources we can devote to this. We are prepared to see duplication of resources and perhaps duplication of services without being able to determine the real cost to the community of what we are doing." We are fundamentally opposed to that approach to our problems in these days. If there is one thing that is clear in Britain in 1952 it is that we have got to parcel parsimoniously the resources that are available to us in order to recover from our economic plight.
How can we determine to do that if transport is to be exempt from the general scheme of parcelling our investment resources, and if we are able to duplicate transport facilities in a way that is open to no other industry and without determining the cost to the community? The Government approach to this is what we expect from a Government of the complexion of the present one, and that is why be believe that fundamentally this Government is inadequate to deal with the economic problems of Britain.
I should like to go on for a moment and deal with another aspect of this matter that has been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) and the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), namely, coastwise shipping and its relation with our transport industry. Coastwise shipping handles a great deal of tonnage which is carried around the coasts of this country. In the past, because of competition first from the railways and subsequently from the roads, we have had to subsidise coastwise shipping while it remained in private hands.
I wish to make it quite clear for my hon. Friends on this side of the House, that we believe that coastwise shipping is


an essential, strategic need of this country; that we cannot possibly allow it to founder and we believe it must be supported. On the other hand, there is no reason why it should cost us more than it need. My complaint against the Government's proposals here is that they mean that coastwise shipping may well cost the nation more than it need do if this were properly planned as was intended under the Transport Act.
I will illustrate what I mean. Apparently, to try to get some order into the rates that are charged for carrying goods, there is to be an advisory committee. Its very name implies that it will not have executive powers. That committee will recommend, presumably to the coastwise shipping interests, to the road hauliers and to the railways, what rates should be charged in order to preserve our coastwise shipping, and to give it a fair deal.
That is fine. I am delighted that they will recommend it, but who is to see that the recommendation is carried out? In the case of the railways there would be no doubt. They are a public undertaking and they have national responsibilities. The Minister would be able to require them to say exactly in what way they would carry out the recommendations of the advisory committee. Can the Minister undertake to do that with the road hauliers? Of course he cannot. He knows that he cannot possibly answer on behalf of the private road hauliers and say that they will be prepared to adhere to any rates that are agreed on by an advisory committee. Bless my soul, they spent the whole of the 1930's breaking voluntary agreements; why should we expect them to act differently in the 1950's, when competition will be very fierce in the transport industry?
Make no mistake about it. We have today an excess of overall transport facilities in this country, with fierce competition. Does anybody on the Treasury Bench think that the road hauliers will restrain themselves and adhere to a voluntary agreement reached by an advisory committee, in order to preserve the interests of coastwise shipping, about which they do not care a fig? This is a monstrous proposal. I put it to the Home Secretary and to the Minister of Transport that it is in the interests of

coastwise shipping, which is one of our most important interests, that the Bill should be amended in such a way as to place a duty on road hauliers to disclose their rates, where they are charging rates competing with coastwise shipping. The Minister knows that to do so would be like putting an umbrella on the main deck of a tramp steamer to protect it against the seas that will sweep over it. It would be as useless as that, and the Minister knows it.
I come to a word about the isolated areas of our country, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling made such an excellent speech yesterday. It is rather appropriate that the Home Secretary should reply to this debate. He has a dual responsibility because he is also Minister for Welsh Affairs. It happens that I represent a Welsh constituency, so he and I can speak in the same terms, even if neither of us speaks Welsh. I will not venture into the Welsh language, because that would be out of order.
I put this to the Home Secretary. Apparently, both in Scotland and in Wales it will be open to the Minister to require the Transport Commission to divest itself of a number of road undertakings, both passenger and haulage. Road haulage undertakings will go automatically, if the Bill is passed. Let us consider road passenger undertakings for a moment. Does the Minister for Welsh Affairs really believe that private enterprise bus undertakers in Wales will buy back buses on the unprofitable routes? Is it really the function of private enterprises to buy back buses on which they will make a loss, or will they only buy back buses on which they think they will make a profit?
If it is the second, are the Transport Commission to run the services that make a loss? Have the public to subsidise those? Will it be the job of the Commission to get sufficient revenue from the railways to ensure that the unprofitable, isolated routes in Scotland can be provided with bus services that no private enterprise is prepared to run? Is that the Tories' conception of the public interest? It may well be true that they do not care for the public interest, but at least they need not be so naked in their indecency. I would like the Minister for Welsh Affairs, who has a particular


responsibility in this matter, to deal with this issue when he replies to the debate.
At this stage I want to raise the ancillary and related question of the sale of the road haulage vehicles. We have a number of depots in Wales—and, of course, in Scotland and also in England. Has the Minister for Welsh Affairs any idea of how many road haulage lorries he expects to be sold in Wales? Has the Minister of Transport any idea of how many lorries he expects to sell throughout Britain? The unofficial estimates that have been made are extremely low.
The Minister has given us no idea of how his mind is moving on this. There are people who make guesses—I do not know with what authority—that as few as 20 per cent. of the vehicles will be sold. Is that the view of the Home Secretary? Does he think it will be 20 per cent. or 50 per cent., or is he perhaps the only man in the House who believes it will be 100 per cent.? It is reasonable to ask that the Home Secretary should tell us what is in the mind of the Government in view of the rumours that there are few takers for these lorries.
If they do not sell 100 per cent., and, of course, they will not—they will not sell 50 per cent., in my view. I agree that I am in no better position to judge than others but, if they do not sell 30 per cent. or 50 per cent., what will the Government do with the rest? And on what basis will they sell those they do sell? Are the buyers to make a tender to be allowed to take the pick of the best vehicles, leaving the Commission with the rump? Is that the idea, so that once again the public will be saddled with the oldest and least roadworthy vehicles while private enterprise will be able to come in and take at a low price—at a loss to the community, as the Government freely announce in their Bill—the best vehicles?
We deserve to have from the Home Secretary tonight an outline of what is in the mind of the Government as to the future of the road haulage undertaking. We know the Executive will be abolished, but will the vehicles that are left be attached to the Commission? Will they be able to operate them as a separate company side by side with the company they will be able to form under Clause 4 for special traffics? These are relevant questions which are concerning everybody in the industry who thinks seriously

about these matters, and I hope the Minister will take us into his confidence and tell us tonight what are his views about this.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) dealt faithfully with the question of the levy this afternoon. I cannot help remembering that Lord Leathers, in another place, six months ago, told us that the levy was the keystone of the Bill. What a keystone. The Government have already dislodged it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Millstone."] If the keystone is becoming a millstone, that is the fault of the present Minister of Transport. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tombstone."] Eventually it will become a tombstone. I am much obliged for all those suggestions; I only wish I had thought of them myself.
This keystone has already been knocked sideways and if the keystone is dislodged the rest of the edifice begins to rock. That is exactly why the right hon. Gentleman has had to tamper with the railway charges. He did not want to do that; he did not start with that idea. The idea the Government had a year ago was to introduce a simple one-Clause Bill selling off the road haulage undertaking. When they began to see what the keystone meant and what happened when it was moved, they found themselves driven into a situation where they are having to reform on a fundamental basis the whole charging system of the railways.
Why are they tampering with this without an inquiry first? Why do they not make some inquiries into the consequences of what they are doing? Really, Mr. Speaker, although the Minister of Transport is a fast learner, I do not think that even yet he has fully appreciated all the consequences of what is being done.
I am bound to say—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not take this amiss—that he has brought his transport history very rapidly up to date. The speech he made in May showed that he had reached about 1920. I thought that yesterday's speech showed that he had reached 1930, and if he goes on for another six months I believe that he will not be just across the Gangway from the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn)—he will be sitting beside him.
The more the Government delve into this problem of the relationship of rail and road the more nearly they are driven to the conception that the hon. Member for Abingdon has advocated in this case. Is it not significant that the most experienced Member on that side of the House should differ so profoundly from his Front Bench upon this issue?
If I had to summarise my criticisms in the few minutes that remain to me, I should say that they are ninefold. First the Government are selling valuable national assets in a hurry, without proper cause, depressing the market by placing them all on the market at the same time, and at a period of trade recession, so that they will not fetch as good a price as when they were bought—bought at the peak, sold at the trough. That is good business for the Road Haulage Association, but not such good business for the nation.
The Government are selling off the vehicles at a time when, as the Minister told us, vehicles are idle. The manner of sale resembles the way in which they got rid of Government surplus stores after the end of the war—[An HON. MEMBER: "Who did?"]—in the way—[Interruption.] I am very glad that the Government have at last found something to cheer up about. After the late war, the Government surplus stores were disposed of in a way which enabled my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) to "claw back," to use his own graphic phrase, some hundreds of millions of pounds. We know that after the war some people made a profit out of the deal.
My second criticism is that the Government are selling assets that they bought for £70 million, which some people now estimate are worth £100 million, for a sum the maximum figure of which is put at £50 million. Why are they doing this, and why are they making up the Road Haulage Disposal Board of those who will benefit from the transaction? And, on the levy, the Government are making those people who will have to pay the levy, pay for the privilege of setting up their competitors in business. It is no wonder that they are opposed to it. No wonder the chambers of commerce have written the document that has been sent to right hon. and hon. Members.
I am told that one of the presidents of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce said that that did not represent their policy. But what does Lord Mancroft, who is a Vice-President, have to say? What does the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Sir A. Gridley), an ex-President, have to say, or Lord Teviot, or the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll), who is an Honorary Secretary? Do they say that this is not their polcy?
I put this to the Home Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary thought that there was not much difference between the two of them. The Secretary-General of the Association takes comfort from the fact that his Association is confident that the variations it has suggested can be achieved within the framework of the Bill. Let us look at the variations which are suggested:
The whole principle of a levy should be strongly resisted.
Are the Government prepared to accept that?
The vital interests of users could be seriously impaired if the existing network of services … were disbanded or disrupted.
Are the Front Bench prepared to accept that? There are several others:
Before fundamental policy changes were determined … there should be an independent, speedy and effective enquiry into the whole of the British Transport Commission's services.
Are the Government prepared to accept that? No, they are not. This document will stand, and I think that the variations that the Secretary-General proposes will not be found within the framework of the Bill unless there is a more substantial revolt from the back benches than has seemed likely so far.
The third criticism is that the Minister has given no information about the number of those who want to come back and no evidence that they will give a better service. There are many other points that I should like to make, but I will give the Home Secretary the time that, I know, he wants.
I must comment on one or two matters. First of all, the men's conditions will be worsened, despite what the Minister of Transport says. There are agreements now between the Road Haulage Executive and the men's unions. Who is going to take them over? It is no use referring


us to the Road Haulage Wages Council. They only fix the minimum rates. They are not responsible for determining what the trade union agreements shall be. They cannot negotiate on behalf of the hundreds of small hauliers throughout the country. That is why the men are concerned about this, and anyone who has studied the problem knows that the people in the industry are very concerned about the prospects.
Finally, it is likely to have a disastrous effect on the geographically isolated communities. It will jeopardise coastwise shipping, it will strangle the Transport Commission, and it will alter the railways liability without evidence and without a ghost of an idea of what it will mean.
I must state the Opposition's intentions in this matter. When we are returned to power we shall take over such units as are necessary for an integrated long-distance public system. We put it in that way because, first of all, we do not know how much they are going to be able to sell—we are very doubtful about that—and, secondly, because it may be cheaper to the public not to buy back the vehicles, but merely to allow some of the licences to run out without renewing them. Let us be clear about that.
The Clauses in the 1947 Act which dealt with compensation will not be our guide next time. Let that be clear, and let me detail some of the provisions that will be missing. There will not be any compensation for loss of business next lime, no compensation for those businesses which are severed as between the lorries which run under 25 miles and those which run over 25 miles. The basis of compensation will not be that of equalling the cost of replacing a vehicle by a new one, nor will there be compensation equal to two to five times the average profit. Is that clear? I think I have made the position as clear as is necessary in existing circumstances, so that no one need go into this industry now thinking that he is going to make a good bargain at the public expense. He is not.
In conclusion, I would say that this Bill was certainly more logical than the last Bill, though it is a worse Bill because it takes us further from the completion of an integrated transport system. [Laughter.] The people who laugh now are presumably the same who cheered

Lord Swinton when he told us six months ago, "We know our minds in this matter. We know what we want to do. We do not need a public inquiry."
Three changes already. How many more before we get to the end of this Bill? The Government pride themselves on making amendments. That is not the sign of an open mind, but of half-baked legislation and half-thought-out ideas. The Minister said he was seriously handicapped at the road haulage dinner by the absence of the support of those who had most to gain. That is frank enough. Those who had most to gain were the road hauliers, not the public, not the men in the industry. Their whole policy is wrong because it has been consistently based on the interest of the road hauliers. They are the only people who have anything to gain from this Bill, and that is why we shall oppose it through all its stages.

9.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) for his obvious effort to conclude as quickly as possible in order to give me time. I am less grateful, as he will understand, for the threats which he introduced into his speech. But I should worry more about the threats if I had the slightest idea for whom he was speaking, for what portion of the party and for what executive of the party.
So I shall deal with the main points that have been put forward during the two-day debate; and I say sincerely that I regret that we have not heard some of those who have sat as constantly as I myself during this debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) said today that the main point to him was the forced sale of the assets of the Road Haulage Executive. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East has suggested that we on this side of the House wish to get away from that point. I want to make it quite clear that we have no such desire. I propose to deal therefore with that point straight away.
In the course of his speech last night, the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) reminded us that those conducting transport did not produce goods but carried them. But I am quite sure that neither he nor the right hon.


Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South would mean those words for a moment to undervalue the importance of transport in this country. What we are agreed upon, and what all the industrial history of this country shows, is that one great advantage which we have had is the short-haul between our centres of production and the ports from which our exports have gone and to which our imports have come.
Unless we can maintain that advantage by finding the best transport system and making the best use of it, then we are attacking not only efficiency as an ideal but transport as an aid to industry and production. We on this side of the House believe—and this is the great issue between us which I face, just as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East faced it—that in order to maintain a productive industry, and it is vastly predominantly private enterprise, which is today supporting our export trade, we must give importance to the right of choice of those who are carrying on that industry and the commerce of our country.
It one believes in right of choice, if one believes that that person is entitled to some consideration or consultation, then, for all that is said about transport as a whole—and I appreciate what is in the minds of so many hon. Members in all parts of the House—each constituent of transport must be of the greatest possible efficiency.
I see that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Poole) is present. He spoke a short time ago and, as far as I can remember, he is one who has taken part in every transport debate in this Chamber since the end of the war. I hope that hon. Members who have heard me speak on transport on more occasions than they like to remember will do me the justice of agreeing that I have consistently put forward the doctrine of local application as being essential to efficient road transport in this country.
I believe that local application, which can only be done by relatively small units, has four great advantages. By it, we get an understanding of the particular needs of the customer which no nationalised undertaking can have. We get a comprehension of the urgency and importance of proper timing of the arrivals of vehicles. We get the stressing of the

importance of the absence of unnecessary handling, which is essential to large classes of goods, and finally we get a quick and certain delivery which no one has ever been able to show that nationalised industry can give. That is one side of it.

Mr. Collick: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. Has he not equally consistently argued in this House that there ought to be no change in railway organisation without an inquiry, and now is he not running away from the whole idea of an inquiry?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing up that point, because it is the next one that I shall deal with. I have always advocated that, as the corollary of that form of road transport, there ought to be greater freedom for the railways. The time when I advocated an inquiry—I remember the occasion very well—was the first time that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East had to go to the Transport Tribunal in a consultative capacity in order to raise the railway rates.
We on these benches put down a Prayer—hon. Members will remember it—on the basis that that could not be done without an independent inquiry by some well known railway people. But what we have done is to seek the advice of representative bodies, and the remarkable thing is that the suggestions that we are putting forward for the improvement and greater freedom of the railways are after consultation, inquiry and discussions, not only with railway people but with traders who may be affected.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East and others have asked me to give the reason for and the method of the sale of the vehicles owned by the Commission. The original reason is that the Socialist Measure had two methods of hamstringing road transport. It nationalised the long-distance transport, and then put a clamping limit, with an arbitrary distance, on the transport which was predominantly short-distance. The only way—there is no other way, and no one in this debate has suggested another way—of re-creating what I believe is necessary, which is local application, is by a re-sale of these long-distance units.
The hon. Gentleman quite rightly asked me by what method it should be done. We believe that the method by which to sell them should be by the creation of operable units which will vary in size and will vary in their geographical position. The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) said that the tendency of the road transport industry was towards large units. In 1938 there were only 79 undertakings with over 50 vehicles and only 22 with over 100. Therefore, we say that the right thing is to make available a proper selection and choice of comparable units. To those hon. Members who have created a tale of woe out of the position of the motor industry in order to bolster up their case, I say quite firmly that the chances of selling lorries are enormously increased by the method we suggest and the structure we put up.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) said that the levy was an admission of the destructive character of the Bill. I would remind the House of the indisputable facts. The total cost of acquisitions under the late Government's proposal was between £70 million and £80 million. Of that, £33 million was in relation to goodwill. Goodwill was based on anything from two to five years' purchase of profits. That was the basis basis chosen by the late Government. Therefore it follows, and it cannot be denied—and no one during these two days has sought to deny it—that the profits which the road transport undertakings have acquired must have averaged something in the region of £10 million.
The total net traffic receipts for the four years of operation of the Road Haulage Executive have been £4.7 million, which is certainly far less than sufficient to cover a proper share of their central charges and which amounts to an ultimate loss. No one has had the courage to suggest that we could possibly expect to get a payment back for a goodwill that we had destroyed. [Interruption.] There have been two days during which anyone could have suggested it. I made the point yesterday afternoon and no one has dealt with it.

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman is making a challenge. Is not he assuming, by the sale to private enter-

prise, that the public undertaking has failed? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] All right. I am not saying that; he is saying it. He is saying that when it goes back to private enterprise it will resume the high degree of profitability it had before. If that is so, why does he not make private enterprise pay on the basis of that higher profitability?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I remember saying once before that I am more astounded by the naïveté even than by the astuteness of the right hon. Gentleman. If he thinks that after a Socialist Measure has destroyed profits we can expect people to buy back at the private enterprise rate of profit, I wonder what is the basis of his thoughts. Let us follow up the point. On this basis the right hon. Gentleman suggests that we are going to get a fairly light payment; but if we take the fact—as is the fact—that goodwill has gone—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I must say that it is rather hard that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have had two days in which to deal with this point cannot put it except by indicating disagreement with my final speech. What has to be done is that we have to decide how that amount is to be made up. Who should pay for the losses that Socialism has caused?
We believe that the purchaser, getting an operable unit, will pay not only for the assets but for his chance of trade, but if there is something left—and I have explained the basis of that—it is essential to budget for some method of making up that loss to the Commission. That is why the levy was introduced. It would be unfair to leave the loss with the Commission, because that would mean that it would be borne by the users of the railways which form the great bulk of the Commission's undertaking. There is no valid reason—no one has suggested it in this debate—why it should be borne by the taxpayer.
We believe, and we support our belief, that the return of nationalised road transport to private enterprise, and the increased freedom that is given to road hauliers to obtain licences if, and only if, they can show that they can give better services than those which industry is getting at present, confer substantial advantages in freedom of choice and local application to trade and industry. Therefore, we have been prepared to face it.
Even hon. Members opposite know what it means that we have to face. We are prepared to face what we think is the right and equitable thing, that the levy should be paid by the users of transport. Hon. Members opposite have thrown out the suggestion—without tying themselves to it, in the irresponsible way which is popular—that it is not fair to put the levy on the C licensee. If the C licence holder does not contribute, he is put in a privileged position as against the A or B licensee. It would not only put him in a privileged position but would encourage traders to take up more C licences at present. Again I ask hon. Members to be honest in their memory and remember that that has been one of the problems we have all tried to face, rightly or wrongly, over six years of transport discussion.
I come to another point made by the right hon. Gentleman which was really rather extraordinary. That was his amazing remark about the Ribble and the Midland Red Companies. He asked what we were going to do and why were we not going to break up the Ribble and the Midland Red. I do not think he was in the House when my hon. Friend reminded the House that the curious thing about the Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Company is that 50 per cent. of the shares are held by the British Transport Commission and that, with regard to the Ribble Motor Services, 44.2 per cent. are held by the Transport Commission. Why does the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South want to break up those companies in which the British Transport Commission have already holdings? Of course the answer is—

Mr. D. Jones: Mr. D. Jones rose—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry, I cannot give way. The answer is that the right hon. Gentleman had never thought for a moment about the holding of the Commission; and that the position is that we have laid down that these holdings can be continued; that the advantages that proceed from these holdings can go on at the same time as the standing joint committee machinery, which the right hon. Gentleman will recall when he thinks of the matter; and also that we have put safeguards which will prevent either the monopoly position being

extended or, on the other hand, the control or purchase taking place to an undesirable extent.
There is one other point I want to make clear because hon. Gentlemen have asked about it, and that is the position of the Commission's goods vehicles. Somebody suggested that there was uncontrolled permission for the Commission to purchase further undertakings or vehicles above the six-fifths of collection and delivery vehicles. But, of course, it will be able to use further vehicles only if it gets permission of the licensing authority.
Now I want to deal, if I can, with two other points. Time is short, and I am doing it as quickly as I can. The first point is one which has surprised me. We had first from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South and a few moment ago from the hon. Gentleman the Member for South-East, who has just sat down, doubts—I think that is putting it fairly; "grave" doubts I do not think would be extravagant—about the freedom that is given to the railways; and the interesting thing again is that of the six points that my right hon. Friend mentioned, on which greater freedom is given to the railways, there has been no analysis from the benches opposite in these two days. There has been only one point on which doubt has been expressed. That is the removal of the prohibition against undue preference and the insistence on equality of charging.
I believe that to maintain the railway companies in a strait jacket most of which was designed and built 100 years ago is an impossibility at the present time. How can the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East, who has before attacked us because, he says, we have shown preference to the road hauliers—defend treating the railway companies today as if they were monopolies, and in a day when the whole tenor of his last nine speeches has been to show that there is no monopoly, but that road transport has been in a favourable position? The matter has only to be stated for its absurdity to be exposed to everyone.
But what amazed me even more than this was that objection was made to Clauses 20 and 21, which give some protection to traders and others. I will miss


the first because it is the less controversial, but I want to deal with one point the right hon. Gentleman raised very early in the debate: why were the road traders allowed to object to the railways under Clause 21 and the railways given no corresponding right to object to road transport? If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 8 (3, b), and Clause 8 (4) he will find that there are two things which have not appeared before with regard to road licensing. Under Clause 8 (3, b) charges can be taken into account, and the licensing authority can estimate whether it is a genuine application based on genuine charges or whether it is put forward as a temporary cream-skimming—if I may use that language, which the right hon. Gentleman knows. Under Clauses 8 (4) it is possible for a licensing authority, for the first time, to revoke a licence if it has been obtained by making representations which have not been carried out.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: rose—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Look at the time.
What I am saying—and I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the point—is that on these applications, both with regard to charges and revocation, not only the railway companies but coastwise shipping can be represented and can make their opinions felt by the refusal or revocation of licences.
I had hoped to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele). I will try to do so very shortly, because I thought he raised, if I may say so, a fundamental point, when he asked: Why is it necessary

to put into a Bill provisions dealing with decentralisation? In fact, he asked us to reconsider that. The reasons that appealed to us were that the set up envisaged by the 1947 Act has produced the cumbersome three-tiered organisation of Commission, Executive and chief regional officer, which, we believe, is incompatible with our policy of securing greater regional freedom for the railways. I have some sympathy with the argument which was advanced that such a set up may be all right for the early days. It certainly is not right, nor should it be tolerated, four years after the Act has come into force, and we believe that an important matter like decentralisation should be dealt with by legislation.

There is one other matter with which I should like to deal, and that is the question of the efficient co-ordination of all forms of Scottish transport, which was raised on both sides of the House. The Government are willing to consider any constructive proposals which may be made in Committee, but we believe that adequate powers are already in the Bill to enable the Minister to set up any machinery which may be necessary for the purpose.

I say just this in conclusion. This debate has been different from every other transport debate in which I have taken part. It is the only one when, at critical moments, there were but 15 and 18 Members of the Opposition present. I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put, "That 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 308; Noes, 282.

Division No. 4.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Burden, F. F. A.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)


Alport, C. J. M.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Campbell, Sir David


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bennett, William (Woodside)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Carson, Hon. E.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Birch, Nigel
Cary, Sir Robert


Arbuthnot, John
Bishop, F. P.
Channon, H.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Black, C. W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Boothby, R. J. G.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)


Baker, P. A. D.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cole, Norman


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Braine, B. R.
Colegate, W. A.


Baldwin, A. E.
Braithwaire, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Banks, Col. C.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Barber, Anthony
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Barlow, Sir John
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Baxter, A. B.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Cranborne, Viscount


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Bullard, D. G.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Bullock, Capt. M.
Crouch, R. F.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)




Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Profumo, J. D.


Davidson, Viscountess
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Raikes, H. V.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Rayner, Brigadier R.


De la Bére, Sir Rupert
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Redmayne, M.


Deedes, W. F.
Kaberry, D.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Keeling, Sir Edward
Renton, D. L. M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Robertson, Sir David


Donner, P. W.
Lambton, Viscount
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Robson-Brown, W.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Drayson, G. B.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Roper, Sir Harold


Drewe, C.
Leather, E. H. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Russell, R. S.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Duthie, W. S.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Lindsay, Martin
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Linstead, H. N.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Erroll, F. J.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Schofield, Lt.-Col, W. (Rochdale)


Fell, A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Scott, R. Donald


Finlay, Graeme
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Fisher, Nigel
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Shepherd, William


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Low, A. R. W.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Fort, R.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Foster, John
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Snadden, W. McN.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
McAdden, S. J.
Soames, Capt. C.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
McCallum, Major D.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Speir, R. M.


Gammans, L. D.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
McKibbin, A. J.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Glyn, Sir Ralph
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stevens, G. P.


Godber, J. B.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Gough, C. F. H.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Gower, H. R.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Storey, S.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Grimond, J.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Studholme, H. G.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Summers, G. S.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Markham, Maj. S. F.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Harden, J. R. E.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Marples, A. E.
Teeling, W.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maude, Angus
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maudling, R.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Harvey, Air Cdre, A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Mellor, Sir John
Tilney, John


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Molson, A. H. E.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Heald, Sir Lionel
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Turner, H. F. L.


Heath, Edward
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Turton, R. H.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Higgs, J. M. C.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Vane, W. M. F.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nicholls, Harmar
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Vosper, D. F.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hollis, M. C.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Nutting, Anthony
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Holt, A. F.
Oakshott, H. D.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hope, Lord John
Odey, G. W.
Watkinson, H. A.


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Horobin, I. M.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Osborne, C.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Partridge, E.
Wills, G.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


Hurd, A. R.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
York, C.


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Peyton, J. W. W.



Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Powell, J. Enoch
Mr. Butcher.







NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Foot, M. M.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Adams, Richard
Forman, J. C.
Mayhew, C. P.


Albu, A. H.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mellish, R. J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Freeman, John (Watford)
Mikardo, Ian


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mitchison, G. R.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Monslow, W.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Gibson, C. W.
Moody, A. S.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Glanville, James
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Awbery, S. S.
Gooch, E. G.
Morley, R.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Baird, J.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Balfour, A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mort, D. L.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Moyle, A.


Bartley, P.
Grey, C. F.
Mulley, F. W.


Beattie, J.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Murray, J. D.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Nally, W.


Bence, C. R.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Benn, Wedgwood
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Benson, G.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Oldfield, W. H.


Beswick, F.
Hamilton, W. W.
Oliver, G. H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hannan, W.
Orbach, M.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hardy, E. A.
Oswald, T.


Blackburn, F.
Hargreaves, A.
Padley, W. E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Paget, R. T.


Blyton, W. R.
Hastings, S.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Boardman, H.
Hayman, F. H.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Bowles, F. G.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Pannell, Charles


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Herbison, Miss M.
Pargiter, G. A.


Brockway, A. F.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Parker, J.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hobson, C. R.
Paton, J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Holman, P.
Peart, T. F.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Houghton, Douglas
Poole, C. C.


Burke, W. A.
Hoy, J. H.
Popplewell, E.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hubbard, T. F.
Porter, G.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Callaghan, L. J.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Carmichael, J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Proctor, W. T.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Champion, A. J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rankin, John


Chapman, W. D.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reeves, J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Clunie, J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Coldrick, W.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rhodes, H.


Collick, P. H.
Janner, B.
Richards, R.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Cove, W. G.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Ross, William


Daines, P.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Royle, C.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Keenan, W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, C.
Short, E. W.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
King, Dr. H. M.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Deer, G.
Kinley, J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Delargy, H. J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Dodds, N. N.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, J.


Donnelly, D. L.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lewis, Arthur
Snow, J. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lindgren, G. S.
Sorensen, R. W.


Edelman, M.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
MacColl, J. E.
Sparks, J. A.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McGhee, H. G.
Steele, T.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McInnes, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
McLeavy, F.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Ewart, R.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Fernyhough, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Field, W. J.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Swingler, S. T.


Fienburgh, W.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sylvester, G. O.


Finch, H. J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Follick, M.
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)







Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Weitzman, D.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Wells, William (Walsall)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
West, D. G.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Thurtle, Ernest
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Timmons, J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Tomney, F.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Wyatt, W. L.


Turner-Samuels, M.
Wigg, George
Yates, V. F.


Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Viant, S. P.
Wilkins, W. A.



Wallace, H. W.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Watkins, T. E.
Williams, David (Neath)
Mr. Bowden and Mr. Pearson.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Kaberry.]

Committee upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to require, amongst other things, the British Transport Commission to dispose of the property held by them for the purposes of the part of their undertaking which is carried on through the Road Haulage Executive, it is expedient to authorise the payment—

(a) out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under section twenty-four of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, which is attributable to the institution of a transport levy treated for the purpose of collection and other connected purposes as if it were part of the excise duties under the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949;
(ii) of sums estimated to be equal to the total amounts or additional amounts which, if the said excise duties had been chargeable in respect of Crown vehicles, would have been payable by way of the said transport levy under the said Act of the present Session in respect of vehicles used for the purposes of Government departments;
(iii) of temporary advances to any transport fund provided for by the said Act of the present Session not exceeding in all fifty thousand pounds;
(iv) of any increase in sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament which is attributable to amendments of section six of the Cheap Trains Act, 1883;
(v) of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under subsection (4) of section one hundred and seven of the Transport Act,

1947, which is attributable to enabling persons to be appointed to act in the place of absent members of the Transport Arbitration Tribunal;
(vi) of any administrative expenses incurred by the Minister of Transport in the execution of the said Act of the present Session (including any charges and expenses of licensing authorities and other persons incurred in or by reason of the execution thereof which are directed under subsection (3) of section twenty-two of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, to be paid as expenses of the roads department of the Ministry of Transport); and
(vii) of fees and allowances to referees and members of boards of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service under the provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to pension rights of and compensation to officers and servants, and of allowances to persons giving evidence before any such referee or board;

(b) out of the Consolidated Fund, of any additional sums required by the Treasury for fulfilling any guarantee of British transport stock or of any temporary loan raised by the said Commission by reason of provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(i) substituting, for the existing limits on temporary borrowing by the Commission and on borrowing by the issue of transport stock otherwise than for the purposes specified in paragraphs (b) and (d) of subsection (2) of section eighty-eight of the Transport Act, 1947, a single limit of two hundred and seventy-five million pounds on the aggregate of the amounts outstanding in respect of the principal of any British transport stock issued otherwise than for the purposes specified in the said paragraph (d) or in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section eighty-nine of the Transport Act, 1947, and in respect of any temporary loans raised by the said Commission;
(ii) allowing the said Commission to borrow in excess of the said limit for the purpose of redeeming any British transport stock which they are required or entitled to redeem or of repaying any money temporarily borrowed by them;

(c) into the Exchequer—

(i) of repayments from the Transport Fund of the temporary advances referred to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph (a) of this resolution; and
(ii) of any increase in the sums falling to be paid into the Exchequer under subsection


(2) of section one hundred and twenty-three of the Transport Act, 1947, which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session.

I am glad to say that the Transport Bill, the Second Reading of which has just been passed by such a substantial majority, imposes on the Exchequer no charges of any great substance. If hon. Members will look at pages 4 and 5 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill, they will see there are only two parts of the Bill which are of any substantial financial consequence to the Treasury.
I see that there are various Amendments on the Paper and I shall have to devote some argument to some of the points raised on those Amendments, but I can say, broadly, by way of introduction, that there are only two substantial financial points that arise—contributions to the Transport Fund by Government Departments towards payment of Part I as it used to be called or now as it is called, the levy.
The Government Departments other than the Service Departments, which do not generally engage in commercial activities, are to pay their proper contribution to the levy. At the moment, as long as the levy remains at 13s. 6d. the cost to Government Departments will be about £112,000 a year. It is our hope that a successful selling back to private enterprise will lead to a speedy termination of the need for the levy at all.
The second major financial consequence to which I ought to draw attention is that it may be necessary, during the early stages of the Transport Fund, for there to be a payment from the Treasury to the Fund to meet any expenses to which the Fund may be subject before the levy is raised. The expenses of the Fund, which would include, for example, the current costs of the Disposals Board, may have to be met before the money is actually raised. It will only be a matter of months. We all hope that it will have a very short life. The levy will first be imposed on 1st January, 1954. Repayments will certainly be made early in 1954. That is the only other substantial charge. It is relatively small, but it is still of some importance.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman questions arising from the imposition of the levy. As I understand, every vehicle over one ton unladen weight has to pay 13s. 6d. for every quarter ton of that unladen weight. What effect will the levy have on the various sections of the community who own vehicles? What will the effect be upon agricultural interests? In recent years there has been a great deal of mechanisation in agriculture, and many farmers own a large number of lorries. They own tractors which are frequently used beyond the farm and are equipped with trailers.
What type of licence will the tractor need when it gets on to the public roads? Is it a C licence, when it is used for conveying farm produce to the nearest railway station and when it returns to the farm carrying coal or other necessities for the farmers and his workers? Do these agricultural lorries and tractors have to pay the levy? I fear that the imposition of the levy on our mechanised agricultural community will be very heavy. If the Minister can tell me that the farmers who operate lorries and tractors equipped with trailer equipment will not have to pay it, I want to know how he has decided that the lorry operated by the farmer outside the farm is escaping the net spread in this Bill.
As I understand, 600,000 vehicles belonging to hauliers will be asked to contribute to this levy. The large proportion of these people will be gaining nothing from the Act which will emanate from this Bill. As there are only 40,000 vehicles to be sold, even if they are all sold, I am concerned that the people buying those vehicles are the only ones who will gain anything from the sale whereas the levy will be spread over a much wider field. Already, my mail is very heavy with communications from my constituents, mostly friends of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are objecting strenuously to this levy. They say they will gain nothing from the sale of the vehicles and they want to know why the levy is being imposed upon them.
The Minister explained that the levy will count for relief for Income Tax and Profits Tax exemptions, but he—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting beyond the Money


Resolution. The House has agreed to the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Manuel: I am sorry, Sir Charles. I was dealing with the 13s. 6d. per quarter ton of unladen weight which is the levy to be paid, and bound up with that in the Money Resolution is the argument that they will be relieved insofar as Income Tax and Profits Tax assessment is concerned.

The Chairman: The Money Resolution is authorising payment.

Mr. Manuel: If I might ask for your guidance, Sir Charles, my point is that they will be relieved of this payment when it comes to Income Tax and Profits Tax assessment, and therefore, I thought that I was in order. Though the levy is to be paid, at the end of the day it is the transport user who will pay it through dearer transport and dearer freight rates either by road or rail. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance that our agriculture, especially in Scotland, will not be affected insofar as agricultural vehicles using our public roads do not have this added oncost.
I am surprised at the treachery to Scotland shown by certain people associated with this Bill. The Minister is a Scot. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary is a Scot—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go outside the Money Resolution.

Mr. Manuel: I am very sorry, but I think I have the sympathy of the whole House—

The Chairman: It is not a question of sympathy; it is a question of keeping within the rules of order.

Mr. Manuel: If I may be allowed, Sir Charles, I am talking about the levy, which is what we are discussing. As I understand, many of the people responsible for the Bill and the levy are Scotsmen, and I consider this to be treachery to Scotland so far as the public interest is concerned, as big a treachery as was the Treaty of Union of 1707. I want to try to keep within the rules of Order. I recognise that you, Sir Charles, are in a peculiarly difficult position. I am speaking for you. You are one of my constituents and, incidentally, I am one of yours.

The Chairman: That is all quite true, but it does not give any licence to go out of order.

Mr. Manuel: So far as concerns the levy being imposed on 600,000 vehicles and only 40,000 vehicles being available for sale how can the right hon. Gentleman justify that burden? Will he also say how it will apply to vehicles owned and operated by the agricultural community? Can the Minister give us any information before we pass from the Money Resolution?

10.26 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I want to ask some general questions about the Money Resolution. The Amendments were put down by my right hon. and hon. Friends largely to get from the Minister the information which so far has been singularly lacking. I can best illustrate my meaning by reminding the right hon. Gentleman that it was from the benches opposite that the hon. Baronet the. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), with all his experience in these matters, said he believed that the Bill would be extremely expensive to the Treasury. We are now asked to consider a Money Resolution on the plea that was made in the course of the debate on the Bill itself that it is only a little one.
The Resolution may in form be a little one, but I think the Minister will agree that the first three provisions in the Resolution raise the question of the sufficiency of the Transport Fund for the purposes for which it is intended. The first of those provisions relates to the expenses of local authorities in collecting the fund; the next to contributions in respect of what I may call Crown vehicles; and the third one relates to what in colloquial language I may call the "float" put up by the Treasury to keep the fund going until some money comes into it.
It is, surely, pertinent to inquire whether that float is sufficient. Incidentally, it is pertinent to inquire what is the amount that is estimated to be the expenses of collection by the local authorities. I am well aware that in the Financial Memorandum there is an observation that these expenses cannot be estimated, but I venture to think that the Minister can do a little better than that. The reason that seems to prevent there being an estimate is his singular


silence on the levy that goes into the Transport Fund and the payments that come out of it.
As regards inquiring into the sufficiency of the float for the purpose of keeping the Transport Fund going, I begin with the levy. So far as I am aware, the only information we have had about the main purpose of the levy—the provision for compensation in respect of what I call the loss of goodwill—is the figure of £33 million that was given by the Home Secretary, not for the first time, in replying to the debate today.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is it not a fact, Sir Charles, that in Committee on this stage of the Money Resolution, the constitutional Prerogative reserved to the Crown for the raising of any charge on the people would prevent a discussion now as to whether there ought not to be a greater amount of money paid into the fund than the Bill provides? [HON. MEMBERS: "Gag."] No—I am quite prepared to stay here as long as the House desires. I only want to know, because it will have an effect on the pattern of my reply.

Mr. Mitchison: May I make a very short statement? What the right hon. Gentleman said may be the case, but I submit that it is open to this Committee to withdraw the provision of a float altogether, for any reason—and the reason may be that they regard the float as insufficient. What I am discussing at the moment is whether the float is sufficient or insufficient in order that the Committee may decide whether they shall withdraw altogether a provision which they may regard as nugatory, derisory and, in all the circumstances, ridiculous.

The Chairman: As I have already said, all we are dealing with now is the authorisation of payments.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. While it is always understood that it is out of order for anyone, except from the Treasury Bench, to move a Motion or an Amendment or a Bill which involves expenditure of public money, that has surely never been extended to mean that in argument, without such Motion or Amendment or Bill, it is not open to any hon. Member to say at any time that the Government ought to be spending more money on some object than, in fact, they propose to spend. Indeed, if such an opinion or

such an argument were out of order, the record of our debates in HANSARD would be reduced by about nineteen-twentieths.

Mr. Mitchison: If I may resume, of course any discussion in Committee will be bound by the terms of the Money Resolution we pass today. I return to what I was saying when the Minister unsuccessfully intervened. Let me be quite neutral: for the purpose of deciding the amount of the float for the Transport Fund, can the Minister give us any assurance about how much it is expected to raise by the levy? Can he tell us, for instance, on how many vehicles it will be levied? Can he say how much it is expected to get for each vehicle? I submit that the request which I am making to the Minister is a reasonable request and one which the Committee, with all their financial responsibilities, are entitled to have answered.
Now to deal with the other side of the Transport Fund—its payments out. I have already mentioned that the only figure I know is that of £33 million. It appeared originally in the form of a payment for goodwill by the Commission itself. It re-appeared in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris). It received somewhat aristocratic embroidery from the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), who quite rightly pointed out that no one really knows about it. But the Minister must know, and he ought to tell us the amount it is expected to pay out under this head of compensation.
We are entitled to an even more important explanation. There is another form of compensation to be paid out of the Transport Fund—and that is, compensation to officers and servants. Although I cannot go into the merits or demerits of anything of that sort at this stage, I submit that, in order to judge the sufficiency or insufficiency of the float, we are entitled to know what the figures are for these various heads of payments, including that which I mentioned last. Those are the main questions which I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman on these first three heads. I add one small postscript to the first of those heads. I notice that a figure has been provided to only one, namely, for the Crown vehicles. No doubt it would help us if the Minister could explain how that figure—£112,000—is made up.
I turn from that to another point that is raised in this Money Resolution—the question of borrowing by the Commission. The Minister and the Committee are well aware that under the Transport Act there were two limits to borrowing. There was a limit for stock borrowing—£250 million, if I remember rightly—and a limit for temporary borrowing. The only relevant provision that appears in the Bill is that instead of there being two limits there shall be one limit and that it shall cover both the stock borrowing and the temporary borrowing.
I quite understand that that may involve the Commission one way or another in smaller or larger charges, but what puzzles me—and I hope the Minister will enlighten us—is what expenditure the Treasury will incur on account of turning these two limits into one single limit. There again, I should have thought, especially with the galaxy of financial talent that I see sitting on the Minister's left, that he would be able to give us some indication of what the financial results of this change are going to be. I do not want to get out of order, but perhaps we can have some indication of why the change is made at all, or what it is all about, because speaking for myself, and I believe for other Members of the Committee, at present I have not the foggiest idea of the reason for it or why any expenditure should be incurred by the Treasury in connection with it.
I proceed to the next point, which we ought to have elucidated. We are to have a limit for the total borrowings by the Commission, and that limit is to cover both temporary borrowings and stock borrowings. There is, however, a provision—and this will apparently entail some further expenditure by the Treasury—that the Commission may borrow in excess of that limit if it is to use the money to redeem stock. If there were two limits I could have understood the reason for some provision of that sort, but I wonder if the Minister could explain why it is necessary to put that proviso into the Bill, and accordingly why it is necessary to have that part of the Money Resolution.
Again I feel bound to ask the Minister this. We are told that whatever the Treasury does incur by way of expense

in connection with this matter will be quite small. Surely the Treasury of all Departments—the galaxy of financial talent is still with us—must be able to give us some idea of the amount involved. I have an uneasy feeling that just as in the Bill generally, so in the financial provisions there has been a singular lack of preparation and a singular extent of confusion in the minds of the Government, or alternatively there has been such a reticence towards this Commission as is really improper when one is dealing with public money.
After all, prima facie it is quite obvious that the financial consequences of this. Bill will be very large indeed, and it is a very curious state of affairs if in the Financial Memorandum the Minister is able to confine himself to the scanty information about administrative expense, contributions, Crown vehicles and all the rest of it that appears there, and to say nothing whatever about the substantial financial results of the Bill; to hide, as it were, behind the Transport Commission and the Transport Fund, and at the end of it all to come to the House and say that from the point of money, millions are involved, but the only expenses that we are to consider are certainly very small and quite intangible. One can hardly accept that.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I rise to make only one point, and I do that because neither in the moving of this Money Resolution, nor in the discussion on the Bill, has anything been said about the Clause dealing with compensation which is to be paid from money obtained from the levy. The Minister should say something about that matter, and I ask him so to do because if the Government's plan for selling all the 40,000 lorries materialises, then there will be displaced a very large number of workpeople—drivers and others, maintenance men, clerks, and those in the depots. These will all go, and under the Bill provision is made for compensation and pension rights to officers and servants employed by the Commission from the moneys received in the levy.
It seems to me a very peculiar sort of situation that not a single hon. Member of this Committee who claims to have some authoritative knowledge of road haulage, as distinct from other forms of trans-


port, has been called today. That seems most peculiar to me.

The Chairman: That does not mean that hon. Members may make Second Reading speeches now.

Mr. Gibson: I am sorry, but I am sure it will be agreed that as nothing has been said about the particular aspects of this problem, some hon. Member should now call attention to the matter. It is a problem which affects the lives of thousands of workers up and down the country, people who are entitled to some statement about that portion of the Money Resolution dealing with the question of compensation rights. I would like to know if it is proposed to consult those people most concerned before regulations are made. Are the trade unions to be consulted?
Is sufficient money to be provided by the levy really to compensate fully and adequately the people who may be affected? Is it to be such as will cover the possibility of all the people at present employed on the road haulage side of the Commission being compensated for loss of job or pension rights? It is disgraceful that the Minister did not think it worth while to say anything about this matter when moving the Money Resolution, and I invite him to get up now and give some feeling of encouragement to the people with whom some of us are most concerned that they will get a fair crack of the whip.

10.45 p.m.

Lieut. - Colonel Marcus Lipton: Speeches which have been made so far on this Money Resolution indicate, beyond a peradventure, the inadequacy of the remarks of the Minister of Transport in moving it and asking the Committee to accept it. If we are to estimate the financial magnitude of what we have been discussing in the House during the past two days, what the Minister said seems to boil down to something like £112,000, which is quite fantastic. I am quite prepared to admit that after two days in which the weight of the argument has been against him, and after two days culminating in a vote by which he just scraped home by the skin of his teeth, the right hon. Gentleman is a little tired. I am prepared to make all those allowances for the right hon. Gentleman; but in my view they do not excuse the

inadequate and very futile way in which he introduced this Money Resolution.
I am just as ignorant of what is involved in this Money Resolution as any hon. Member sitting opposite—and possibly the Minister himself—and no greater admission of abysmal ignorance could be made than that. If we examine the Resolution we find that in paragraph (a) there are specified no fewer than seven directions in which payment may have to be made out of moneys provided by Parliament. Seven specific outgoings are recorded in the Resolution. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are they?"] I am coming to that in a moment if the Committee will allow me to do so. I am trying to cope with this Resolution to the best of my ability.
Here we have a Government which prides itself on being composed of businessmen, of financial experts, of people who know the value of money, and all that kind of thing, and yet here are seven items specified and in respect of not a single one have we had a vestige of a clue from the Minister of Transport as to what is involved.
In the first place the Resolution holds out the prospect of some increase attributable to the institution of a Transport Levy, and this increase will be treated as if it were part of the Excise duties under the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949. It may well be that by treating this increase as part of the Excise duties under that Act some savings will be made, because it will not be necessary to create a separate Department or employ additional civil servants to deal with this increase; but we are not told whether any extra staff will be required to cope with the increased sum of money that will be payable nor are we given any information as to the total of this particular increase.
When we come to paragraph (a, ii) we are not told what is involved or what additional amounts of Excise duties have been chargeable or would have been chargeable in respect of Crown vehicles. Not a single piece of information—not one hard figure—has been given to the Committee in that respect. In paragraph (a, iii) we are treated a little better. There at least we know the maximum sum of £50,000, because the
… temporary advances to any transport fund provided for by the said Act of the present Session …


cannot exceed £50,000. It would be interesting to know for what purpose these temporary advances to the Transport Fund will be required. On that point, too, we have had no information whatever from the right hon. Gentleman.
Let us proceed to paragraph (a, iv). It is anticipated that there will be some increase in the sums payable by Parliament out of public funds, assuming that certain Amendments are going to be effected in the Cheap Trains Act, 1883. We are all very interested in the Cheap Trains Act, 1883, and we should like to know to what extent these cheap trains envisaged in the Act of 1883 have become very much dearer trains as a result of the peculiar activities upon which the Minister of Transport is engaged.

Mr. John Paton: I am sure it would help the House very greatly if my hon. and gallant Friend could give us the provisions of the relevant Section of the Cheap Trains Act, 1883.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I should be very pleased to do so, but I believe that many hon. Members wish to take part in this discussion, and I will not presume to take up the time of the Committee. I assume that right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench know what is contained in Section 6 of the Cheap Trains Act, and if my hon. Friend presses the matter no doubt the Minister of Transport, when he replies, will give the necessary information. It may well be that others of my hon. Friends, who have today been looking at that particular legislation, will be able to make their valuable contribution to the discussion.
Coming now to paragraph (a, v), it appears some extra funds are to be paid to certain persons to enable them to act as members of the Transport Arbitration Tribunal in the place of absent members. I do not know why it is assumed that when this Bill reaches the Statute Book members of the Transport Tribunal will be absent to any substantial degree. If there is to be some form of absence with or without leave on the part of the members of this Tribunal, I should like to have some idea of what financial liabilities are involved.
How long will a member of the Transport Arbitration Tribunal be entitled to absent himself from that duty, or can he absent himself on half pay for a lengthy period which is not specified in the Bill? If he is absent, what kind of reasons will be accepted as adequate for this absence? Is there to be any refund of the fees payable to absent members because of their absence, which can be transferred or paid to those persons appointed to take their places? There again we have no information at all.
I think the Minister of Transport is not treating the Committee with the courtesy to which it is entitled. Here we are engaged upon consideration of a Money Resolution based on legislation—possibly the last major piece of legislation which the present Government will be able to produce before they are turned out of office—and we have very little information on these important points. I am sure that in those circumstances the requests for information that I have ventured very respectfully to submit to the Committee, which are reasonable and normal requests, will be acknowledged by the Minister, and that specific and courteous answers will be forthcoming.
When we proceed a little further we find that in paragraph (a, vi) the Minister of Transport envisages that he may incur additional administration expenses in his Department, some of which will include charges and expenses of licensing authorities. Others will arise because of additional expenses of the road department of the Ministry of Transport. On those two important extensions of the Department's activities we are given no information.
Then we come to another class of persons not previously mentioned in the Money Resolution, namely the boards of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service. In this respect I felt that the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) was perhaps labouring under a misapprehension when he thought that paragraph (a, vii) made some provision for the payment of pension rights to the members of the transport industry, about which he is an acknowledged expert. It only provides for the fees and allowances which are to be paid to these referees, and those referees are to decide upon the pension rights and compensation to officers and servants.
The financial liability involved in that sub-paragraph does not, in my submission, include the pensions or compensation which will have to be paid to the many people who may be displaced from their present employment. It will, of course, provide for one consequence of that displacement, namely, the hearing of claims and appeals by those people; and for the purpose of hearing those claims and appeals it may be necessary to appoint a very large number of referees and members of boards of referees working under the control of the Minister of Labour to work out and assess those pension rights and the compensation claims. These are likely to be very large, and it will take a long time for the Ministry of Labour referees to settle them In my submission, there will have to be some inter-Departmental transfer from the Ministry of Transport to the Ministry of Labour, because it would be unfair that the Ministry of Labour Vote should have to bear the increased expense arising out of the foolishness of some conduct on which the Minister of Transport may have embarked.
I shall have to leave one or two points for other hon. Members to deal with, because we on this side of the Committee do not believe in monopoly, and there is no reason why I should even seem to be monopolising this discussion on the Money Resolution. But when we come to paragraph (b) there are points which are causing disquiet on this side of the Committee and which ought to be ventilated, for in paragraph (b, i) the Minister is taking unto himself, or unto the Transport Commission, the right to exceed the existing limits of temporary borrowing.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my hon. and gallant Friend explain where that is?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: If my hon. Friend will turn to page 322 on the Order Paper he will see in the subparagraph at the top of the page that the Minister of Transport wants to substitute something for something else. I cannot put it any more briefly than that. If my hon. Friend wants to know what that something is he will have to study the text, and if he is any wiser afterwards than any of us then he is a better man than I am.
Although the Minister of Transport said that the preceding paragraph was

just small beer, and almost the petty cash in the Ministry of Transport which the office boy looks after, the provisions in paragraph (b) involve many millions of pounds, because the Minister knows very well that if the Commission is to embark on a policy of temporary borrowing it will not be to raise £50,000 or even £100,000, but large sums. It should be remembered too that as long as the present rate of interest is increasing that is an additional reason why we should study with greater care than ever the commitment we are being asked to accept.
When we look at that paragraph closer we find the even more alarming statement that, notwithstanding the substitution of a higher level, apparently the Commission is permitted to borrow in excess of the amount
for the purpose of redeeming any British transport stock which they are required or entitled to redeem or of repaying any money temporarily borrowed by them.
That may amount to many more millions of pounds.
I hope I have conveyed my profound suspicion of the right hon. Gentleman. Speaking particularly as a London member, we in London have bitter reason to regret his antics because fares have already gone up, and it looks as if they will go up again, so that an additional financial liability on the people of London looks like being a direct consequence of the Money Resolution which the Committee is being asked to accept. I hope I have convinced hon. Gentlemen opposite with a valid argument. They knew nothing about the matter when I started. Although they may not know much more now perhaps they are a little more suspicious.
I hope as the result of such contribution that I have been able to make that the Minister will perhaps agree to withdraw the Money Resolution and give us a better opportunity to study it when we are not so tired after two days of strenuous debate, and when we have had time to consider the matter in a better and calm perspective. If he is not willing to withdraw or postpone it I hope the Committee on both sides will turn it down completely and ask him to come to the Committee again with a better one.

11.5 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: If the right hon. Gentleman is convinced of anything, I feel sure he will be convinced by the speeches to which we have just listened that many of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee are not satisfied with the opening speech that he made in explanation of his Money Resolution. It was a short speech and, like many speeches made on that topic, it was designed largely to reassure the Committee that the Money Resolution did not involve any expense other than a purely negligible one.
But I thought we were being taken to task by the present Government for just that expenditure of small amounts which cumulatively, they said, amounted to large ones. My hon. Friends have asked a large number of questions, and, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree, rightly asked, as their duty required, which they still require to be elucidated. Many of my hon. Friends and myself put down Amendments to this Money Resolution, the purpose of which was to extract information as to its object. And the questions which would have been asked when those Amendments were moved are the questions which have been put to the right hon. Gentleman in the course of this debate. I do not want to repeat them—indeed it is almost cruelty to the right hon. Gentleman to add to the flow which has already been levelled at his head—but there are one or two short questions that I want to put to him which I hope will also be answered.
Paragraph (a, i) of the Money Resolution deals with the expenses of collecting the levy. The Commission is to be enabled to run transport companies. The right hon. Gentleman today gave an indication that the range of those companies might be somewhat extended beyond what we had hitherto thought was to be their range. Are those companies themselves to pay the Transport Levy? If they are, surely that is a case of the Commission itself, by means of that payment, simply contributing towards making up the capital loss which is to be sustained through the disposing of the road haulage vehicles.
If that is the situation, I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that it is quite idiotic, wholly illogical and quite impossible to justify, and that might

be one reason why he would accept the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) that he should withdraw the Money Resolution altogether. If he cannot see his way to do that, I hope he will be able to satisfy my hon. Friends and myself on that point. It is possible that there is some Clause in the Bill which we have overlooked which would exempt those companies from the obligation of paying the levy. If there is one, we have not discovered it and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to point it out to us.
So far as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) indicated in the course of his speech, we have not had any explanation other than the statement—because it was hardly an explanation—contained in paragraph 18 of the Explanatory Memorandum of the reason for which the two limits of £250 million and £25 million in respect of temporary borrowing and borrowing by the issue of stock have now been joined together in one over-riding limit of £275 million. I have no doubt that there is a good reason for it, but unless I have overlooked it, it has not been given in the course of the debate, nor has it been stated in any document issued by the Government. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give an explanation for that change. The object of it is not apparent and we feel sure that there must have been some motive behind it which we hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us.
I want to ask the Minister one other question. The Bill provides, and the Money Resolution reflects it in its terms, that Government Departments are to £112,000. Why should Government Departments be called upon to make a contribution when they will get no benefit at all? The benefit from the Bill goes to the road hauliers who get back the vehicles.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: indicated dissent.

Sir F. Soskice: The right hon. Gentleman says not. Perhaps he will indicate what benefit the Government Departments are to get. It is not at all apparent, but the benefit which the road haulage companies are to get is very apparent and self-evident.
The Explanatory Memorandum makes it perfectly clear that the figure of £112,000 is to be paid in respect of the period up to the end of 1955. The levy is to be imposed, as I understand from the Bill, from 1st January, 1954. If it is to be about £4 million a year—and I gather that the Minister has provisionally in his mind that about £20 million will be required—the levy would have to go on for five years. If the £112,000 is simply to cover the period until the end of 1955, I suppose it follows, if Government Departments are to continue to make that contribution, that they will have to go on doing so for a period of years after the end of 1955. They will have to go on paying for a period of five years from 1954.
If that is correct, my calculation is that they will have to pay more than £250,000 in the aggregate over the period during which the levy will run. What possible justification can there be for calling on Government Departments to make a contribution of that magnitude when they get no advantage from it at all? In any case, it is more or less a book-keeping entry: it is an outgoing from one Government sector which is received by another Government sector. There does not seem to be much sense in that. What is the logic behind the proposal?
We shall listen anxiously to see whether the right hon. Gentleman can supplement his opening speech with adequate answers to these questions and the others that have been asked. He knows we do not like the Bill, but we have a reasonable attitude towards his Money Resolution, and we put down reasonable Amendments to try and ascertain its purpose and scope. I hope that my hon. Friends will agree that if we do not obtain adequate replies it would be our plain duty to indicate our displeasure by recording a vote in the Lobby.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should like to thank the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) on the courteous and friendly way in which he made his observations. It is always a pleasure to see him, outside or inside this House, and I shall do my best to deal with the questions courteously, as I was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) and succinctly, as he also asked me.

Lieut.-Colonel M. Lipton: I never used the word succinctly.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Then if the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to carry on this debate later I have added another word to his vocabulary.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that in my introductory speech I attempted to paint any financial consequences of this Bill as a mere bagatelle. I can ony say that the taxpayers would certainly wish that the cost of nationalising this industry could have been carried out for the trifling cost at which denationalisation is to be conducted. I shall deal briefly but, I hope, adequately, with the various points that have been raised. I must congratulate many hon. Members for the ingenuity with which they have contrived to make a number of observations, all of which, I am sure, were strictly in order; and I hope that by the time we reach the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill no hon. Member on either side of the House will have expired.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel)—I remind him that but for the Treaty of Union, about which he was so angry, he would not himself be in the House—raised one point which I can answer at once. There is no change whatever contemplated in the licensing system, and none of the agricultural vehicles that he sees, and which we are all glad to see, about the lanes and fields of Britain will have their licensing structure altered in the least.
As to the payment of the levy, it is linked with the payment of the Excise Duty. I do not propose to be drawn into defining precisely all those varieties of vehicles which are exempt from Excise and those which are not. The short answer is that no vehicle in private hands will pay the levy unless it also pays Excise. I hope this meets the hon. Member's query. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) raised a question that was later raised by other hon. Members: that was, as to the charge on the vehicles of the Crown, or Government Department vehicles, of the levy. It appears to us that the Service Departments, which never engage in commercial or quasi-commercial activities with their vehicles in any way, should not pay the levy but there seems to us no reason at all why a distinction should be made


between vehicles in private hands and vehicles in the hands of the State.
Far too often the ordinary taxpayer feels that he is subjected to a burden from which the people—this is how they argue, however wrongly—who impose the burden are exempt. In our view, this charge should be general for all who will, we believe, equally profit from the freeing of long-distance road haulage, whether they are Government Departments or private citizens. Similarly—this answers the point, I hope, although I do not suppose the hon. and learned Member will be satisfied; and if he is not satisfied on this or any other point, we have many days to come on the Committee stage of the Bill—the Commission itself will pay the levy on those vehicles that are in its hands. There will be no loss on the vehicles it retains. They will be retained at the book value at which they are entered.
I remind the Committee of the very substantial changes that have been made in the two Transport Bills that I have had the honour of introducing. The changes that have been made in the volume of vehicles that the Commission is being allowed to retain—and those will be wholly withdrawn from the auction—will represent for all to see, and for the Commission to prove, the effectiveness of national ownership, the largest single body of haulage vehicles in Britain in public hands, with all the advantages that that brings.

Mr. Mitchison: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point of what I may call "Crown vehicles," will he tell us how he proposes to treat Post Office vehicles?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In the same way, the limitation on size applies to Departmental and private vehicles alike, and a large number of Post Office vehicles will escape the levy altogether. I will come to the calculations in reply to the hon. and learned Member. A road vehicle, in whatever hands it may be, qualifies for the levy by size.
The hon. and learned Member also raised the question of what he called the adequacy of the "float"; and not in any way to bring the discussion to an end, but solely to acquaint myself with the precise procedure—for it is very rare to

have a lengthy debate with Amendments on a Money Resolution—I asked a question of the Chair. At the moment, the levy is designed to yield £4 million annually. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, it will be first collected on 1st January, 1954, and payments out of the Transport Fund will start on 1st January, 1955. Until the end of 1955, it will be at the rate calculated to bring in £4 million.
At the end of that year it will be revised in the light of the contingency that we have to meet, and we shall have to settle what sum it will be for the remaining and the expiring period. That period, although it may have to take the form of being a period of three years, can be cut short; and if, in the course of three years, the causes for which the levy is raised cease to operate, that can be done. It is certainly my hope that when, at the end of 1955, a re-calculation has to take place, it will be for a period which will see the end of a charge which nobody likes.
The hon. and learned Member asked me—and I hope he will not expect me to answer in the same detail, if I could—exactly how the levy is to be calculated. The appropriate Schedule to the Bill gives a great deal of information. I am quite prepared to go through its provisions, but I think it would be tempting too far the good nature of the Committee if I merely recited the calculations there. Perhaps I may answer the hon. and learned Member by giving a few figures which appear neither in the Bill nor the Schedule.
At the moment the levy is on vehicles of one ton and over. There are some 340,000 goods vehicles which do not weigh more than one ton unladen and which will, therefore, altogether be exempted from the levy. That leaves 560,000 vehicles; and 520,000 of them do not exceed four tons in unladen weight. It is the intention of the Bill that this overwhelming majority—520,000 out of 560,000—will pay a levy which at the very most will be £10 16s. and which at the least—and a great many of them will pay the least—will be £3 7s. 6d. Only a fraction of the vehicles chargeable with the levy—some 40,000—will pay more. The vast majority will not pay more than £10 16s. and a very large number of those will pay only a sum rising from £3 7s. 6d.
Perhaps I may add this comment—I think it is in order, as I was asked the question: if the unladen weight for exemption were raised so that vehicles of under 30 cwt. were exempt from the levy, the levy would have to be increased, but our calculations show that it would have to be increased by only one shilling, and it would have the effect of taking 80,000 vehicles outside the scope of the levy.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked me how we were to calculate the estimated loss on the sales. I do not think he put it quite so crudely as that. He knows that it is quite impossible to answer the question, and all I can tell him is that we all hope that once the Bill is law, whatever our views may be as to the wisdom and propriety of the Bill, the transition will be carried out smoothly. I think we all hoped that on 1st January, 1948, which was the vesting day of the Labour Party's Nationalisation Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is the tradition of this country. When the heat of battle is over, we all try to make things work. I think that is broadly true.
I very much hope that there will be only a small loss. We cannot tell, and it would be idle to prophesy, what that loss may be. But on this point I would once more remind the Committee of this fact: the vehicles of which it is intended to dispose made an average profit of £10 million a year before they were nationalised, and out of that profit the Exchequer got a very considerable sum. When people talk about a national loss and hold up their hands in horror at the possibility of a £20 million loss, they should remember that that is only two years of the profit which these vehicles made in private hands and which we are confident they can, given freedom, make again.

Mr. H. Morrison: Mr. H. Morrison rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has come in, but I will give him time to get his breath, and then I will give way. The answer I give to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering is that at the end of two years we have to re-calculate the levy, and we shall then have the facts on which to go, because the disposal will be completed by the end of 1954, we hope. The 25-mile limit will be ended by the end of 1954,

and when we have to re-value the levy we shall have the facts at our command.

Mr. H. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman now says rather indiscreetly that these vehicles made £10 million a year profit before, and that he hopes they will make £10 million profit again. Why is he going to auction them at knock-out prices on the assumption that they are not going to make any profit at all?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I thought the reply of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was extremely generous in the circumstances when he said that if an ex-Cabinet Minister really had such naivety as to believe that one could carry out a complicated business transaction on those terms he was scarcely qualified to fill an important job. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The answer is, of course, that we are about to sell, as soon as the Bill is law, property from which, through all sorts of circumstances, the goodwill has disappeared. The goodwill has, in existing hands, disappeared. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] Hon. Members may dislike this fact and may disagree with it, but this is the whole basis on which this part of the Bill is designed.
If, in fact, we are right in our contention that in present hands the goodwill has disappeared, how can we possibly expect to get all that goodwill back? This I concede to be a genuine argument against the Bill which, I have no doubt, will rear its head again when we have long and elaborate discussions on the Question "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill"

Mr. Mitchison: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one question? If I have anticipated what he was going to say I hope he will forgive me. Like Rosa Dartle, I only want some information. Is he satisfied that the Transport Fund, raised in this way and with these obligations upon it, will provide surely and continuously for the compensation provisions to personnel which have to be met?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was most certainly coming to that, for I took very ill the remark of the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) that no one had mentioned compensation. I spoke at great length about it yesterday. I was coming to that point.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering mentioned the question of


borrowing provisions. Clause 25 (1) of the Bill makes provision for greater flexibility in the existing borrowing powers of the Commission. At the present moment the Commission can borrow £25 million for temporary borrowing and £250 million for borrowing by the issue of stock. This change is to meet a request by the Commission. They want to have greater flexibility, and we are very ready to do as they request.
The purpose of the Clause is not to increase the total of the borrowing powers but to increase the flexibility of their borrowing powers. It is possible that it might add some fractional extra cost to the Treasury, and I wish to be absolutely clear on this. I think it is highly unlikely. It would be quite insignificant. The amount which the Commission could borrow and the amount subject to the Treasury guarantee would be on clearing costs and similar things. There is probably nothing in it, but to make quite certain we have put in this possible trifling extra cost to the Treasury.
The hon. Member for Clapham and, indeed, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, raised this question of compensation. I am very anxious that the Bill, when it finally reaches the Statute Book, should not only be fair to the men who work in transport but should seem to be fair to them as well. I believe this can be done, and when I said yesterday that we would hurry on with the regulation—I am taking power in the Bill in Clauses 26 and 27 about these regulations—I really meant what I said.
I have the liveliest recollection of what happened when hon. Members opposite liquidated by compulsion large numbers of private hauliers, many of them in my own home district and many others in the districts of other hon. Members in this Committee. It was 2½ years before any compensation Regulations were published. For 2½ years these people, many of them in business in a small way—indeed, the main charge is that we are handing this business back to a lot of small fry who will not have the great organisational strength of big business—were left uncertain as to what they would get, and they did not get any money for 2½ years. We will do our best to see that the compensation regulations are published before the process of disposal is started.
The hon. Member for Clapham talked as if a large number of people were going to be put out of work. Does he realise the consequences of what he says? If an efficient transport concern can be run by fewer people, it must consequently be inefficient now and to suggest that great numbers of people will be thrown out of work is a reflection on those who are now running the industry. I say that because I think he should be fully aware of the consequences of his argument. It is the view of H.M. Government that there will be room for the vast majority of people, but, in the process of change, no one can say with absolute certainty that a person here and there may not find himself without a job.

Mr. Gibson: I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to misinterpret me. What I said was that if the Government succeeds in getting rid of 40,000 lorries, that must mean that 40,000 drivers, with all the repair and clerical staff will be affected. All I ask is for an assurance that adequate compensation will be available to provide for these people if, in the sad event of this happening, these people suffer.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I know the hon. Gentleman does not want to see people out of work, any more than do I, or any of my hon. Friends; but, if we want efficient transport, then there may be some temporary disturbance in some lives. We shall do our utmost to protect all people concerned, and, of course, a great many will gladly find re-employment in private hands. If there are those who are out of work, or displaced—

Mr. H. Morrison: Or worsened.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: —then if they fall within the purview of the compensation provisions—and I use almost the same language as that used by our predecessors in the 1947 Act—we shall certainly do our best to protect them.
I have said that we will do our best in regard to compensation regulations. Now, I am asked will there be enough money. The same answer applies. There certainly will be by the time the levy first comes up for review about the end of 1955, for £8 million will have been paid in by then. There is provision for temporary advances, up to £50,000, pending the arrival of money from the levy, and we are determined to see that


the fund will always be in funds. If there is not enough money, these advances would apply; and when the recalculation takes place in 1955, if there is not sufficient, then the levy will have to be more. I hope that meets the point which has been put by the hon. Member, because it is a sincere attempt to explain what is the true position.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: It is very important from the right hon. Gentleman's view to see that justice is done. That is what he says, and I agree; but will he try also to see if it is possible to give an undertaking that, before the Bill goes to Committee, the type of regulations which he has in mind in so far as the assessing of what is to count for compensation rights shall be made known? Can hon. Members see the regulations brought within the Bill, as in the 1921 Act? If that is not possible, then may we have some indication of the kind of basis which is to be used in arriving at the compensation to be paid?

The Chairman: It would not be in order to discuss that question.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Would I be in order if I said that I shall gladly consult with the proper trade union authorities as to the form which they would like to see the regulations take? I will look at the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Manuel: Would the right hon. Gentleman meet my point about compensation? Does he fully understand that when these 40,000 vehicles are sold the men will not be bought along with them? He has no control over who the buyers will be or where they will be located, and if the buyers of a large proportion of the vehicles are 200 miles from where

the lorry drivers live, will the sum of compensation which he envisages in his Money Resolution be sufficient to cover the loss of their positions?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: To answer that question would be to anticipate in far too great detail the form which the regulations will take; but I will look at the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton, in addition to raising a number of points with which I have tried to deal, referred to the Cheap Trains Act and the Clauses in the Bill which amend that Act. Briefly, the position under the present situation is that when there was an alteration in the standard ordinary fares of British Railways, as a result of the agreements which the Service Departments have with the British Transport Commission, troops on duty were travelling cheaper than they did before. This was nobody's intention and it is now proposed to amend the Cheap Trains Act and, as the Committee will see, the Secretary of State, the Admiralty, the police authorities and the Commission will make their own arrangements. I think this will commend itself to all hon. Members who are anxious that those on duty should travel cheaply but are also anxious that the Commission should become a properly paying institution.
I hope I have answered the various points which have been raised. I have certainly tried to do so. I thank the Committee for the courtesy with which they have advanced their arguments and I hope that it is a good presage for the way in which our future debates will be conducted.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 296; Noes, 270.

Division No. 5]
AYES
[11.40 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Brooman-White, R. C.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Browne, Jack (Govan)


Alport, C. J. M.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt Hon. P. G T.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Bullard, D. G.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Bullock, Capt. M.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Bennett, William (Woodside)
Bullus, Wing Commande, E.


Arbuthnot, John
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Burden, F. F. A.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Birch, Nigel
Butcher, H. W.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bishop, F. P.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Black, C W.
Campbell, Sir David


Baker, P. A. D.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Carson, Hon. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cary, Sir Robert


Banks, Col. C.
Braine, B. R.
Channon, H.


Barber, Anthony
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)


Barlow, Sir John
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)


Baxter, A. B.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Cole, Norman


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Colegate, W. A.




Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Powell, J. Enoch


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Profumo, J. D.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Raikes, H. V.


Crouch, R. F.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Redmayne, M.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Renton, D. L. M.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Kaberry, D.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Davidson, Viscountess
Keeling, Sir Edward
Robertson, Sir David


Deedes, W. F.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lambert, Hon. G.
Robson-Brown, W.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lambton, Viscount
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Roper, Sir Harold


Donner, P. W.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Doughty, C. J. A.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Russell, R. S.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Leather, E. H. C.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Drayson, G. B.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Drewe, C.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lindsay, Martin
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Duthie, W. S.
Linstead, H. N.
Scott, R. Donald


Ecoles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Erroll, F. J.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Shepherd, William


Fell, A.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Finlay, Graeme
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Fisher, Nigel
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Low, A. R. W.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Fort, R.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Snadden, W. McN.


Foster, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Soames, Capt. C.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
McAdden, S. J.
Speir, R. M.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
McCallum, Major D.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I of Wight)
Stevens, G. P.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
McKibbin, A. J.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Godber, J. B.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Storey, S.


Gough, C. F. H.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Gower, H. R.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Studholme, H. G.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Summers, G. S.


Grimond, J.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Sutcliffe, H.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Markham, Major S. F.
Teeling, W.


Harden, J. R. E.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Marples, A. E.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maude, Angus
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maudling, R.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Tilney, John


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Mellor, Sir John
Turner, H. F. L.


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Molson, A. H. E.
Turton, R. H.


Heald, Sir Lionel
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Heath, Edward
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Nicholls, Harmar
Vosper, D. F.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hollis, M. C.
Nutting, Anthony
Watkinson, H. A.


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Odey, G. W.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Holt, A. F.
O'Neill, P. R. H. (Antrim, N.)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Hope, Lord John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Horobin, I. M.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Osborne, C.
Wills, G.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Partridge, E.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Wood, Hon. R.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham N.)
Perkins, W. R. D.



Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Pete, Brig. C. H. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Major Conant and Mr. Oakshott.


Hurd, A. R.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.








NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Adams, Richard
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Albu, A. H.
Gibson, C. W.
Mort, D. L.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Glanville, James
Moyle, A.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Gooch, E. G.
Mulley, F. W.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Murray, J. D.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Nally, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Grey, C. F.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Baird, J.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oldfield, W. H.


Balfour, A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Orbach, M.


Bartley, P.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oswald, T.


Beattie, J.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Padley, W. E.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hamilton, W. W.
Paget, R. T.


Bence, C. R.
Hannan, W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Benn, Wedgwood
Hardy, E. A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Benson, G.
Hargreaves, A.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Beswick, F.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Pannell, Charles


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hastings, S.
Pargiter, G. A.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hayman, F. H.
Parker, J.


Blackburn, F.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Paton, J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Pearson, A.


Blyton, W. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
Peart, T. F.


Boardman, H.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bottomley, Rt Hon. A. G.
Hobson, C. R.
Poole, C. C.


Bowles, F. G.
Holman, P.
Popplewell, E.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Porter, G.


Brockway, A. F.
Houghton, Douglas
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hubbard, T. F.
Proctor, W. T.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rankin, John


Burke, W. A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reeves, J.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Callaghan, L. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rhodes, H.


Carmichael, J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Champion, A. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Chapman, W. D.
Janner, B.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Ross, William


Clunie, J.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Royle, C.


Coldrick, W.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Collick, P. H.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Short, E. W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Daines, P.
Keenan, W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Kenyon, C.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, J.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
King, Dr. H. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Snow, J. W.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Sorensen, R. W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Deer, G.
Lewis, Arthur
Sparks, J. A.


Delargy, H. J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Steele, T.


Dodds, N. N.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Donnelly, D. L.
MacColl, J. E.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Driberg, T. E. N.
McGhee, H. G.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McInnes, J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Edelman, M.
McLeavy, F.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Swingler, S. T.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Sylvester, G. O.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Ewart, R.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Fernyhough, E.
Manuel, A. C.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Field, W. J.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Fienburgh, W.
Mayhew, C. P.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Finch, H. J.
Mellish, R. J.
Timmons, J.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mikardo, Ian
Tomney, F.


Follick, M.
Mitchison, G. R.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Foot, M. M.
Monslow, W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Forman, J. C.
Moody, A. S.
Wallace, H. W.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Watkins, T. E.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Morley, R.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)







Weitzman, D.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Wilkins, W. A.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Wells, William (Walsall)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


West, D. G.
Williams, David (Neath)
Wyatt, W. L.


Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Yates, V. F.


White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Mr. Bowden and


Wigg, George
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. Speaker: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) is out of order.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: On the Second Reading of this Bill I assume it is at least in order to argue about the timing of its introduction, and to raise certain matters which we think of special importance with regard to this Measure. We had hoped to have been able to put the point that in our view the whole of this procedure was the wrong way round.
We were confronted with the position some days ago that we were being asked to make certain provisions in the Public Works Loans Bill, and then subsequently we were being asked to take the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It is our view that at this time of the evening a debate on this very important matter of the timing of the introduction of this Measure should be further delayed because it does raise this very important issue of the question whether or not local authorities, by being encouraged to go into the money market, should be forced by the Government to pay excessive rates of interest. For that reason we believe that the introduction of this Bill should be delayed.

Mr. Speaker: It is a Ruling that has lasted for over 50 years that the inclusion or exclusion in or from a Schedule of the Bill of any Act cannot be discussed on Second Reading.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I submit two considerations? While I

think it is perfectly true that for many years past there has never been any detailed discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill, and that detailed discussion has been left to the Committee stage, I have been unable to find any definite Ruling that a discussion on Second Reading is out of order. Surely it is possible for any hon. Gentleman to argue that this Bill should not be given a Second Reading at all, either because none of the particular enactments in the Schedule are fit to be renewed for another year, or alternatively, on the grounds that the Bill omits to renew for a further year a number of enactments which should be renewed.
While no one would wish at this hour to detain the House for any undue length of time it seems to me of great importance that the House should preserve its right to discuss the Bill as a whole on Second Reading, and if necessary to proceed to a vote. If that be the position I should have thought it valid as a necessary corollary that hon. Gentlemen were entitled to address arguments why they thought the Bill should not be given a Second Reading.
My second point is this. There was some reference to this matter on Wednesday last when we were discussing the Public Works Loans Bill. On that occasion you, Mr. Speaker, said:
When we come to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the question will be quite unprejudiced by anything said on the present Bill, and the House can come to its decision whether or not that Bill as it now stands should be passed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 961.]
I think I am speaking within the recollection of a number of other hon. Members who were present when I say that it amounted to an assurance that, while we agreed to allow the Public Works Loans Bill to take precedence on Wednesday, the House was not to be prejudiced in its right to discuss the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Might I add that I attach particular significance to the words "the House." I well appreciate that there can also be a discussion on the Committee stage, but


the terms of your assurance, Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly apply to the rights of the House which, of course, only come into operation on the Second and Third Readings.

Mr. Speaker: The rights of the House also come into effect on the Report stage. I made it perfectly clear, though I have not the copy by me. I went out of my way, even anticipating the discussion, to indicate to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East that his Amendment was out of order on Second Reading. What I meant was that the House could discuss this properly on an Amendment moved in Committee, and that the report of the Committee might or might not be accepted by the House at a later stage. As to the other matters to which the hon. Member has alluded, the House is quite in order in voting against he Second Reading of the Bill. As to discussing it, the hon. Member would have to discuss it without reference to any of the Acts in the Schedule, and I think he would find that a very narrow limitation, so narrow that in the past there has been no discussion at all.

11.57 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: Accepting your Ruling that I must not refer to any Acts in the Schedule, Mr. Speaker, I should like, within the narrow limits which you have indicated, to adduce arguments as to why I suggest that the Bill should not be given a Second Reading. Regardless of what Acts there are or are not in the Schedule, one of the principles that follows from this Bill is whether it is reasonable that the House should continue certain enactments year by year. It may well be that this has been done for a long time, but many people take the view that it is important that the law should be definite and fixed and that citizens of this country should know not merely for one year in advance but for a considerable time ahead what is the law of the country.
Therefore, it merits consideration whether it is reasonable at all to isolate half a dozen miscellaneous provisions from different statutes and continue them year by year. I should have thought it was an archaic method of legislating. It may be justified by historical reasons, but I should have thought the time had arrived when this House ought seriously

to consider whether this is a modern businesslike way of dealing with this.
The contents of the Schedule can be considered on the Committee stage, but is it really a sound principle that some of these totally unrelated matters should have to come up year by year, whereas the bulk of our legislation is fixed and accessible and people know that it endures for a long time—apart, of course, from controversial and rather flippant Measures like Transport and Iron and Steel Bills? I am speaking of the general law of the land, the non-controversial law, unlike these other Measures with which the Government see fit to use up Parliamentary time.
I should have thought that this was an admirable occasion for us to consider whether any useful purpose is served by the practice of renewing totally unrelated matters year by year. It involves the use of Parliamentary time and some hon. Members, including the Leader of the House for one, may well think that the Parliamentary time available to the Government is not so ample that it is particularly wise to use a great deal of it up in this way. That is one reason why the House is entitled to exercise the right, which it may have chosen not to exercise for a number of years, and consider whether we should have an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill at all.
There is nothing sacrosanct or particularly temporary in any of these Measures set out in the Schedule. A great many deal with matters which have been in existence for a large number of years; some go back to 1924. They are of a notoriously diverse character. Therefore, I suggest that the House seriously consider whether the time has not now arrived when the whole of these miscellaneous enactments should be put on a permanent basis and that we should not have this Bill in this form year by year.

12.1 a.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I, too, want to speak of the principle that underlies this Bill. The time has come when we should regard this method of temporary legislation as thoroughly unsatisfactory. Here we have a number of diverse statutes. Generally, they were introduced as temporary, and as a result inadequate time was originally given to their discussion. If one takes an example, without going outside the rules of order, there is


the whole of the law relating to aliens. It has never been discussed by this House. That is serious. It has been constantly renewed, but it was never discussed in its origin because it was introduced on 4th August, 1940. It has gone on year by year.
We have reached a time when we should clear up and tidy up this legislation, and here is an ideal opportunity. We have a Government without any mandate from the electors, with no business whatever to be introducing controversial legislation which can only upset the economy of the country.

Mr. Speaker: This is, on any interpretation, far beyond the Bill.

Mr. Paget: I was merely pointing out why this was such a convenient time to get rid of this form of legislation and to provide proper time to introduce permanent legislation to replace it. We should have permanent legislation. At this time, when there is more or less a "caretaker" Government, without a majority of votes, and which has no business to introduce except controversial legislation, there is a real opportunity to do these useful jobs that have wanted doing for a long time, and so ease industry's mind by getting these disturbing and doctrinal Measures out of the way.

12.5 a.m.

Mr. James Hudson: Although I was disappointed by your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, yet I bow completely to it. I wish to give reasons, however, why I think that the whole of the Bill should be rejected on Second Reading. Certainly, the Acts contained in the Schedule ought not to be included in the Bill, two of them because they have grown quite out of date in view of the needs—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should put down Amendments in Committee to deal with those Acts.

Mr. Hudson: I have not got an Amendment down, but at the time when Members of my own party were responsible for the Government I made serious criticisms of certain of these Acts, which will be found stated at great length in HANSARD, whose columns I can quote. At the time I made those references, they were ruled to be in order—at least, no

attempt was made to rule them out. At that time I criticised very strongly the continuance of, at any rate, part of the Measures that are mentioned in the Bill. Certainly, I feel—

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing wrong in the hon. Member's criticising Acts which it is proposed to include in the Schedule of the Bill, but he must do it in Committee and not on Second Reading.

Mr. Hudson: I still feel, Mr. Speaker, that despite the fact that I ought to—and indeed, I will, under your guidance—come again to the matter in the Committee stage, there is a case now for facing up to the fact, as the Government ought to have faced up to it, that these Acts generally have grown out of date and they have no right to be taking up the time of the House in a Second Reading debate on issues that have no applicability to the position—

Mr. Speaker: I agree entirely with the hon. Member, and that is the point of order that I have been trying to instil into the House. It is not proper to take up the time of the House on Second Reading with criticisms of the various Acts when machinery exists ready for proper discussion in Committee. That is the basis of all these Rulings, and I am afraid that I must rule the hon. Member out of order in that respect.

12.8 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I have for many years been seeking an opportunity to oppose the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I cordially welcome and accept the Ruling you have given, which provides me with that opportunity. I am not concerned with the Amendment, which, rightly—because you, Mr. Speaker, are the right person to decide—you have ruled out of order. I am not going to refer to any of the Acts contained in the Schedule to the Bill, because if I interpret your Ruling correctly any reference to them, any controversy as to the merits or demerits of these particular Acts, would be completely out of order.
The fact that a previous Labour Government, because more important things required their attention, continued this form of legislation during the years that the Labour Government were in power, does not mean


that the present Government must slavishly follow what the Labour Government did. Some of us thought that, with a new Government, there would be a new broom and a determined attempt to do away with this constant renewal of emergency legislation. But what do we find? We find that at this late hour of the night, by the decision of the Leader of the House, we are asked to agree to the continuance of the outworn, out-dated formulae which are involved in the Second Reading of the Bill. I suggest that it is a little odd that all the bad, out-of-date or merely traditional things which the Labour Government did when in power are being continued by this Government, while all the good things we did are being abrogated.
I want to go on record as being strongly opposed to the Bill. It is an antiquated method which wastes the time of the House. Under efficient administration of the business of the House—the lack of which we have deplored since this Government came into power—all the purposes for which the Bill is required could easily be met in other ways, with a considerable saving of time. In addition, we should have the advantage which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) outlined—that the law would be more accessible and much more comprehensible to those which have to interpret it and who have to assist those people who go to the legal profession for legal advice.
For all those reasons, I hope the House will express the view that this is the last time we propose to allow any Government to ask the House to agree to the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. If the only way in which we can convince the Government of the seriousness of our intentions is to divide the House, then I will gladly support any of my hon. Friends who wish to go into the Lobby against the Second Reading.

12.12 a.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I am sure it will be acknowledged that we have taken part this evening in an historical occasion. As far as my researches go, we have not had a debate on the Second Reading of this Bill since 1863. I congratulate my hon. Friends on their ingenuity on finding the occasion for one this morning. It is true that

in 1936 one of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, permitted Mr. George Buchanan to move that the debate be adjourned before it had started and that, on the pretext that the debate was going to be adjourned, the House conducted a 12-hour discussion on the future of the special areas. But this is the first time on such an occasion that we have had arguments addressed to the substance of the Clauses of the Bill.
I think it is quite right that the House should exercise its ancient privilege of watching legislation of this sort, and the only disappointment I have is that the Liberals have not been here to share it with us. After all, they put down an Amendment to the Gracious Speech which said that we should watch legislation very carefully—and we are prepared to help them in that course; but we expected them to translate words into deeds and we hoped that we should have their assistance in this matter tonight.
I do not want to deny the Financial Secretary the opportunity to reply, and I want to ask him why it is proposed to continue these Acts until 31st December, 1953, and why, in the case of the Acts in the second part of the Schedule, which of course I shall not proceed to discuss in detail, he proposes that they should be continued until March, 1954. In other words, a Government with imagination that wanted to get their programme of business through might very well come to the House and say, "Let us continue these Acts for a period of two years and then we shall have more time to discuss the Transport Bill." I myself would welcome more time to discuss the Transport Bill. The longer the discussions we have the more the weakness of their case will be shown.
It would seem to me that the Financial Secretary might tell us why he thinks 12 months is the right period for extending these enactments so that we may judge, before making up our minds whether to vote this evening, whether his reasons are sound and adequate.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I could not allow the Financial Secretary to reply because that would mean that he would be referring to the various Acts which are differentiated in the Schedule, and that should be done on the Committee stage.

Mr. Callaghan: I was hoping that we were not going to get on to a point of order on that matter, because I submit to you with deference, Sir, that the dates to which these enactments are to be continued are in the body of the Bill. If we are not to discuss the Schedule and we are not to discuss what is in the body of the Bill, what is the purpose of having a stage called the Second Reading?
Presumably we are allowed to divide on it—I suppose that right has not been taken from us—and if we are allowed to divide on it, one would assume that we are allowed to adduce reasons why we are going to divide. Therefore, I submit with great respect that it is in order to adduce reasons why we should ask the Financial Secretary to tell us why he wants to continue these enactments for a period of 12 months and not for a longer or shorter period.

Mr. Speaker: It would involve consideration of the Acts in the Schedule, would it not—each one, as I understand it? The hon. Member is entitled to divide against the Second Reading of the Bill, but the discussion on Second Reading has been, in the last 50 years at least, very strictly limited.

Mr. Frank Bowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to tell the House exactly why, because for 50 or 60 years there has been no ordinary debate on the Second Reading, we should not have one tonight? We do not know why. There are certain things that go through "on the nod," but could you explain why there is no debate at all on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill?

Mr. Speaker: I think I can explain it quite well. The Clauses of the Bill, leaving the Schedule out of account, do refer to the Acts in the Schedule. The Bill is really incomprehensible without detailed examination of the merits of the various Acts which are being continued. The proper place for that is in Committee. There is no connection between the various Acts in the Schedule. It does not deal with only one subject but with many, and it is the practice of this House to deal with it most appropriately, which is in Committee.

Mr. Bowles: But with respect, always on the Second Reading of any Bill one is allowed to discuss what is in the Bill. I do not see why what is in the Schedule

is any less in the Bill than what is in, say, Clause 2.

Mr. Speaker: It is because of the peculiar nature of the Bill.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I hope I shall not detain the House—

Mr. Hector Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I respectfully submit that so narrow a Ruling as that which you have just enunciated completely stultifies debate in this House. I am saying this with the greatest respect. This House is then to be in the position of being asked to divide upon a matter concerning which they do not know what they are dividing upon.

Mr. Speaker: I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. This is a Ruling which has persisted for 50 years, and if the hon. and learned Member does not find sufficient grounds for dividing the House on the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), I am afraid that that is the only ground that there can be.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Further to that point of order. With great respect, surely that is not an adequate reason. I submit that a Ruling cannot be justified if it can be proved to be entirely unreasonable and one which stultifies this House. My submission is that that Ruling does stultify this House because the House will be asked to divide upon a matter concerning which we do not know what we are dividing upon.

Mr. Speaker: It is well settled practice, and there are other stages of the Bill more appropriate for discussion than this.

Mr. Callaghan: This, if I may, with respect say so, appears to be a most peculiar situation. A Motion is before us upon which, apparently, we can divide, but upon which there can be no discussion of the merits. May I, Mr. Speaker—and I agree that this is quite hypothetical—ask whether, if the Government came along and wished to move that the Bill should be continued for two years, and not for one—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or for a hundred years."]—would it then be in order for us not to be entitled to debate why the Government proposed to continue these enactments for that length of time? I am seeking information for generations as yet unborn; I am speaking for those generations.


Would you, Mr. Speaker, then be in the position of upsetting precedents for, as my hon. Friend says, a hundred years, in order to enable the House to fulfil its ancient authority?

Mr. Speaker: Speaking for generations as yet unborn, I hope that the House will concede the Second Reading, leaving the Committee stage open for proper discussion on proper functions.

Mr. Callaghan: I hope that we shall not pass the Schedules to the Transport Bill in the same way; that we shall not discuss them at all, as we are not allowed to discuss these Schedules. But, on a narrower point—and I appreciate that you, Mr. Speaker, will not preside over our discussions on the Committee stage—would you tell us whether, if an Amendment is put down for that stage, it will be called? If that is so, then, despite the unsatisfactory attitude of the Government tonight, I would ask my hon. Friends not to divide now.

Mr. Speaker: Obviously, it is not for me to pre-judge the decision of the Chairman, but I can tell the House that it is in order to move for the inclusion of an Act within the Schedule, providing it is an expiring law, that is to say, that it has not yet expired and, on the other hand, is in order for money reasons.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order.

Mr. Bing: I rise, not to a point of order, but for the benefit of generations as yet unborn.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious point of order. You said that it would be in order to put down an Amendment, or suggest the inclusion of any other Act in the Schedule, providing that Act was on the verge of expiring. In these circumstances, would it be possible to include in the Schedules to this Bill the present Transport Act which doubtless is on the verge of being made into an expiring law?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I cannot have more points of order.

Mr. James Carmichael: May I make a point of order? It is that it has been indicated that the practice has been to go along

a certain line. May we have a Ruling, not merely on the practice, but a Ruling on the subject which we have not had so far?

Mr. Speaker: I have given a Ruling founded on the practice of the House. The practice of the House is binding on me, as it is on other hon. Members.

Mr. Carmichael: With all respect, if it is the practice of the House surely it is based upon some Ruling given in the House at some time and constituted in the Standing Orders and the rules of the House? Surely we are entitled to have some guidance so that we can look it up. There is nothing wrong in an ordinary back bencher looking up the rules so that he can be safeguarded.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will find guidance as to the practice of the House in the volumes which deal with it.

12.26 a.m.

Mr. Bing: I am going to add only one word to what has been said by my hon. Friend, if I may do so for the benefit of the unborn generations whose interests it is the duty of hon. Members on both sides of the House to safeguard. I address my remarks to the Long Title of the Bill. There would be no objection whatsoever to having a discussion based upon the purpose of the Bill, which is to continue certain expiring laws. You may yourself recall, Sir, that in 1947 there was a discussion, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), on the subject of emergency legislation. I think you took part in it. One of the issues was whether or not this emergency legislation should be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
The point I want to put quite shortly is this—and I hope that we shall have an answer from the Leader of the House: it is one thing to have an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill when one continues all the expiring laws in that Bill: but if three-quarters of the laws which one is going to continue are continued in some other way there is an argument for doing away with this practice. Let us either do what was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields and continue all the Defence Regulations by means of a Bill of this nature or make all the Bills that are contained in these Schedules Defence Regulations and continue them in that way.
But what is quite wrong—and what I am very surprised that the Leader of the House should do—is to try to adopt both processes, because he knows perfectly well that in his Election address and in the Election addresses of all hon. and right hon. Members opposite it was said that this process was not going to be followed. Hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to remember what they said in "Britain Strong and Free". They said:
Such powers, but no more, as are required for the present critical situation should be incorporated in new Statutes requiring annual renewal.
That may apply to an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, but it would be of a very different character and nature from this one.
We are surely entitled to say that this one should be rejected in order that one could be brought in which would be more appropriate to the broken promises by which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite succeeded in winning the Election. The quotation from "Britain Strong and Free" continues as follows:
New Orders will have to be made under these new Acts, and thus all the Regulations and Orders under emergency powers will have to be reviewed by Parliament.
Were we to expand the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill to take into its ambit all the Defence Regulations there would be every reason to say that hon. Gentlemen opposite had fulfilled their Election pledges; but if that is not done it makes an absolute mockery of the promises which they threw out so glibly in order to get a few more votes.

The House should look a little more carefully at this Bill in the content in which it now comes forward. It is quite impossible to consider any Measure without taking into consideration the surrounding circumstances. A Bill which might be quite appropriate to introduce at a certain time—for instance, the provisions of the Army Act 100 years ago—would be quite inappropriate today. In the same way, an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill of this nature might have been quite appropriate in the past but be quite wrong today, and we should be given some indication how the Government are to get an annual renewal of these powers and have them thoroughly scrutinised by Parliament, if they are not going to put them into this Bill.

If they are going to put them into the Bill then clearly the dates are all wrong. The date ought to be 10th December, because the Regulations expire on that date, and not 31st December. It would be courteous if the Leader of the House would at least deal with some of his Election pledges. We are aware, of course, that a great many of them cannot be explained away, and he is the most dexterous of all right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in that, but at least on this we are entitled to some answer.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn) rose in his place, and claimed to move,

"That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 289; Noes, 266.

Division No. 6.]
AYES
[12.30 a.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Birch, Nigel
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bishop, F. P.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)


Alport, C. J. M.
Black, C. W.
Cole, Norman


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Boothby, R. J. G.
Colegate, W. A.


Amory, Heathcoat, (Tiverton)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Arbuthnot, John
Braine, B. R.
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Cranborne, Viscount


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Baker, P. A. D.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Crosthwaite Eyre, Col. O. E.


Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Crouch, R. F.


Baldwin, A. E.
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Banks, Col. C.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Crowden, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Barber, Anthony
Bullard, D. G.
Cuthbert, W. N.


Barlow, Sir John
Bullock, Capt. M.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Davidson, Viscountess


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Burden, F. F. A.
Deedes, W. F.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Butcher, H. W.
Digby, S. Wingfield


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Campbell, Sir David
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Carson, Hon. E.
Donner, P. W.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Cary, Sir Robert
Doughty, C. J. A.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Channon, H.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm




Drayson, G. B.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Drewe, C.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Renton, D. L. M.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Duncan, Gapt. J. A. L.
Leather, E. H. C.
Robertson, Sir David


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Robson-Brown, W.


Erroll, F. J.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Fell, A.
Lindsay, Martin
Roper, Sir Harold


Finlay, Graeme
Linstead, H. N.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Russell, R. S.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. G.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Fort, R.
Low, A. R. W.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Foster, John
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Scott, R. Donald


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lyttelton, Rt Hon. O.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
McAdden, S. J.
Shepherd, William


Garner-Evans, E. H.
McCallum, Major D.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Godber, J. B.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Gomme-Duncan, Col A.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Gough, C. F. H.
McKibbin, A. J.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Gower, H. R.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Snadden, W. McN.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Soames, Capt. C.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Maclean, Fitzroy
Spearman, A. C. M.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Speir, R. M.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Spence, H. R (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Harden, J. R. E.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Stevens, G. P.


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Markham, Major S. F.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Storey, S.


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Marples, A. E.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maude, Angus
Studholme, H. G.


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Maudling, R.
Summers, G. S.


Heald, Sir Lionel
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Sutcliffe, H.


Heath, Edward
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mellor, Sir John
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Molson, A. H. E.
Teeling, W.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount




Hirst, Geoffrey
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nicholls, Harmar
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hollis, M. C.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Tilney, John


Hope, Lord John
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Turner, H. F. L.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Turton, R. H.


Horobin, I. M.
Nutting, Anthony
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Odey, G. W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
O'Neill, P. R. H. (Antrim, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Vesper, D. F.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Handon, N.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Hurd, A. R.
Osborne, C.
Ward, Miss I (Tynemouth)


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Partridge, E.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Watkinson, H. A.


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wills, G.


Kaberry, D.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Keeling, Sir Edward
Profumo, J. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Raikes, H. V.



Lambert, Hon. G.
Rayner, Brig. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lambton, Viscount
Redmayne, M.
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith and




Mr. Oakshott.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Bacon, Miss Alice
Benson, G.


Adams, Richard
Baird, J.
Beswick, F.


Albu, A. H.
Balfour, A.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Bing, G. H. C.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Bartley, P.
Blackburn, F.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Blenkinsop, A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bence, C. R.
Blyton, W. R.


Awbery, S. S.
Benn, Wedgwood
Boardman, H.







Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hobson, C. R.
Proctor, W. T.


Bowden, H. W.
Holman, P.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bowles, F. G.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Rankin, John


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Houghton, Douglas
Reeves, J.


Brockway, A. F.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rhodes, H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Burke, W. A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Ross, William


Carmichael, J.
Janner, B.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Champion, A. J.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Chapman, W. D.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Short, E. W.


Clunie, J.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Coldrick, W.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Collick, P. H.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Corbert, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, J.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Keenan, W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Kenyon, C.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Snow, J. W.


Daines, P.
King, Dr. H. M.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Steele, T.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lewis, Arthur
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lindgren, G. S.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Deer, G.
MacColl, J. E.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Delargy, H. J.
McGhee, H. G.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Dodds, N. N.
McInnes, J.
Swingler, S. T.


Donnelly, D. L.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Sylvester, G. O.


Driberg, T. E. N.
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Edelman, M.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Manuel, A. C.
Timmons, J.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Tomney, F.


Ewart, R.
Mayhew, C. P.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Fernyhough, E.
Mellish, R. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Field, W. J.
Mikardo, Ian
Wallace, H. W.


Fienburgh, W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Watkins, T. E.


Finch, H. J.
Moody, A. S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Weitzman, D.


Follick, M.
Morley, R.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Foot, M. M.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Forman, J. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
West, D. G.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mort, D. L.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Freeman, John (Watford)
Moyle, A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mulley, F. W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Murray, J. D.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Gibson, C. W.
Nally, W.
Wigg, George


Glanville, James
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Gooch, E. G. H.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.




Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Oldfield, W. H.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, David (Neath)


Grey, C. F.
Orbach, M.
Williams, Rev. Llwelyn (Abertillery)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oswald, T.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Padley, W. E.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Paget, R. T.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Hyton)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Hamilton, W. W.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Hannan, W.
Pannell, Charles
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hardy, E. A.
Pargiter, G. A.
Wyatt, W. L.


Hargreaves, A.
Parker, J.
Yates, V. F.


Hastings, S.
Paton, J.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hayman, F. H.
Peart, T. F.



Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie



Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Popplewell, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Herbison, Miss M.
Porter, G.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Royle


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)



Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Butcher.]

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]

Considered in Committee of the whole House under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934, the Road Traffic Act, 1934, and the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-three, and of the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1945, and the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, being expenses which under any Act are to be defrayed out of such moneys.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

12.44 a.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Now that we are in Committee I have no doubt we shall be able to have a more leisurely and more detailed study of the Money Resolution than, of course, we could have had on Second Reading. The ambit of the debate then was limited by the previous practice of the House. Obviously there is no such limitation on the duty of this Committee to consider the financial implications of the Bill which has had a Second Reading by such a very narrow majority. The Financial Memorandum which accompanies this Bill, and which is the only justification we have had in this Committee for the Money Resolution we are asked to pass, seems most inadequate.
I am sure there are several questions that arise in the minds of every hon. Member who has considered the Financial Memorandum. Perhaps I could refer to one or two of the purposes for which we are being asked to vote money tonight. In the first place, we are asked to pro-

vide such expenses as may be incurred by the continuance of the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934. May we know roughly what sum we are being asked to vote? I have no idea. There is nothing about it in the Financial Memorandum. We are also being asked to vote money in connection with the continuance of the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938. There we are given some information. We are told that this will account for a sum of £4,000 a year in respect of the salaries of the staff engaged in providing national statistics on fertility. I have no doubt—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member is entitled to ask for the sum but he cannot go into the details of these Bills. This is a Money Resolution only.

Mr. Fletcher: The point I was coming to was that there are various Measures set out in the Schedule for which money has to be provided. We are told that we have to provide £4,000 for the continuation of the Population (Statistics) Act so that we can have further details of fertility. Then we are told that in connection with statistics under the Road Traffic Act the expenditure involved cannot be stated but that it will be small. "Small" is a relative term. We have heard "small" used in various contexts. I will not quote any of them because a number of illustrations will leap to the mind.

Mr. R. R. Stokes: Three hundred million pounds.

Mr. Fletcher: If we had the presence of the Prime Minister, who is a Member of this Committee, we might have a different idea as to what he meant by small than when we are dealing with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I am anxious to know what is the yardstick. In one paragraph of the Financial Memorandum we are told precisely that the statistics of fertility will cost £4,000 a year, but we are also told that we cannot be given precisely the estimate in respect of the Road Traffic Act but that it will be small. Is it more than £4,000 or less. Is £4,000 the sort of sum below which the Committee is not given any details? I cannot help feeling that this is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Then we come to the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, which is an important Act. The Committee will have to decide in due course whether they are going to renew it for another year. We are told that the estimated expense is £1,300. I should have thought that small compared with £300 million heard in connection with a millstone, and the Town and Country Planning Bill, introduced today to abolish a £300 million global sum payment.
But that is not the end of it because another item which will require the attention of the Committee is the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) will have a great deal to say about that. How can the Committee do itself justice; how can the hon. Member for Ealing, North address himself to the desirability of continuing that Bill for another year unless we know how much expenditure is involved? All we are told is that it is small. I cannot help thinking that when we are told it is small, the Government mean it will be more than the sums of £1,300 and £4,000 mentioned in respect of the two Measures I have previously mentioned. The Committee ought not to proceed with the matter unless the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is prepared to give us much more information about the cost of renewing this Bill for another year.

12.51 a.m.

Mr. Barnett Janner: I have listened with great care to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), and I agree that this is by no means a trivial matter. I should like to know the answer to one matter to which he has not referred. We are told in the Financial Memorandum that the continuance of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, will involve expenditure in respect of the remuneration and salaries and allowances payable to the members of staff of tribunals set up under the Act. This is extremely important:
On the assumption that the 68 tribunals will continue to operate as at present, it is estimated that the cost will amount to £120,000.…
This is absolute nonsense, because we have been told time after time that the

tribunals are not intended to continue as at present—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot discuss the tribunals or whether they are to continue or not. The one question that can be discussed is the financial arrangements.

Mr. Janner: With great respect, we are told that the reason why £120,000 is going to be expended—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member can raise that issue during the Committee stage, but at this stage the only question is the amount of money. He cannot discuss whether the tribunals themselves should be continued.

Mr. Janner: I am not discussing that at all. On the contrary, it has already been decided, without any discussion, that they shall not be continued. That is the gravamen of my case. We are being asked to provide £120,000. I submit that I am entitled to ask how we can be asked to provide that sum when it is not intended to provide the tribunals on which the money is to be spent. Surely I am entitled to ask that in a general sense?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon Member can raise that on the Committee stage. That is the proper place to raise it, not here.

Mr. Janner: We have been told that we cannot discuss anything on the Bill itself. Are we now being told that when we are asked to pass a Money Resolution, we are to pass or not pass it without knowledge of what that money is to be used for? I am talking in a general sense. It is public money. We are being told a series of untruths, because the very basis on which this application is being made to us is unfounded. Surely I am entitled—

The Deputy-Chairman: I must point out it is not in order to discuss that on this Resolution. The place to discuss what is in the Bill is on the Committee stage. The hon. Member can then make the speech he is making.

Mr. Janner: Of course, Mr. Hopkin Morris, I bow to your Ruling in the matter. Then, I put it in general terms: Is the Financial Secretary prepared to explain why he is asking for this Money


Resolution at all? What is it that he wants? Is there any reason why, in view of what the Government have been saying and doing, in view of their constant attempts to wreck the whole of the system which has been built up of protection—

The Deputy-Chairman: Again, I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the terms of the Resolution.

Mr. Janner: Without considering what the Government are doing, have done or propose to do, will the Financial Secretary explain why on earth he wants this money, because we are not prepared to grant it unless he gives a satisfactory explanation?

12.56 a.m.

Mr. James Hudson: This is one of the occasions on which Parliament exercises its inalienable right to criticise expenditure and, indeed, to withdraw Supply. The Resolution talks about it being
expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament …
I consider it is a disgrace that as Members of Parliament we should be considering the payment of money for purposes like those mentioned in the Bill. The Money Resolution says:
it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance …
At that point, Mr. Hopkin Morris, I understand that your Ruling comes down. Up to that point, I say that a Government who have gone to the country with all sorts of promises about care in the expenditure of public money, a Government that come away from their party conference with further resounding promises about economy in public expenditure—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid I am coming down a little further on the hon. Member. This is a very narrow Resolution, and the matters that the hon. Member is now raising can very properly be discussed on the Committee stage of the Bill. That, as I point out once more, is the proper place to raise these issues.

Mr. Hudson: I am obliged for your guidance, Mr. Hopkin Morris, but all the same I feel it is quite wrong for me as an individual Member of Parliament to

remain quiet while a proposal of this sort is going through the House. I cannot speak, of course—

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not wish that the hon. Member should remain quiet upon it. He will have his opportunity when the Committee stage is reached, when he can put down Amendments to deal with those issues; but the Resolution is a very narrow one.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will not that be too late? Once we pass this Resolution, it is passed and we cannot go back on the work that we have done. Therefore, surely now is the time to discuss this Money Resolution and to decide whether or not we desire to vote this money.

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, this is the time to discuss the Money Resolution, but not the merits of the Bill.

Mr. Janner: Further to that point of order. May I ask this question? Supposing at a later stage we want to introduce a further Act into the Schedule, we should not then be able to do that if this Money Resolution had not been discussed fully, because we would then be told that no Money Resolution had been passed which would cover that point. Therefore, how on earth, if we do not deal with the Money Resolution now, can we in Committee stage deal with any Act apart from removing any Act?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is out of order to try to remove the sums in the Resolution even now. The only things that can be discussed is whether it should be withdrawn or what should be substituted for it.

Mr. Hudson: I shall be guided by what you have told me, Mr. Hopkin Morris, in the matter of putting down Amendments to deal with the subjects in which I am interested, but I object to the whole of the Bill; I object to the expenditure of money on the Bill; I object, in particular, to the inability of the Government to tell us with any precision in what sort of expenditure the House is to be involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) referred to the second paragraph of the Financial Memorandum which states that the expenditure involved in the Road Traffic Act, which is to be continued:
cannot be estimated but will be small.


That statement runs like a refrain through the Memorandum, because exactly the same words are repeated about another expenditure, at the bottom of the page, where it is again stated that the amount:
cannot be estimated but will be small.
Is it creditable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Credible."]—is it either creditable or credible that a Government who have promised, as the present Government have, to be careful about the expenditure of public money, should come before us with indefiniteness of this kind? I suggest to the Financial Secretary that this refrain should be sung by him as his most appropriate exercise on this occasion. At any rate, we should get it into our minds, as the country will get it into their minds, that in matters of this sort, where legislation is being continued, the Government know nothing at all about the precise expenditure in which the country will be involved, despite the general promises they have made, some of which I have read.
I agree that we should do what I have been advised by the Chair to do—put down a series of Amendments which may considerably lengthen the proceedings on the Bill. That is unfortunate, but one naturally bows to the guidance from the Chair. There are many things in the Resolution and the Bill which must be examined in detail because of the indefiniteness of the Government about the nature of the expenditure, and I cannot escape the fact that these Amendments will have to be put down. The Patronage Secretary is watching me, and I hope that when the Amendments are put down he will exercise all the patience of which he is capable and let us deal in detail, as I have been promised the opportunity of doing, with the issues in which I am so much interested.
To be spending money on the continuance of Bills or Acts—

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: On bills.

Mr. Hudson: I was not thinking of it in that way. To be spending money on Bills which can no longer be justified, when the situation has so changed that expenditure on the organisation is no longer necessary, as we shall prove when we come to the details, is inexcusable. To spend money in the way we are asked,

whether the sums be large or small—and in one case it is £120,000—is entirely inexcusable in these days. It is entirely out of line with the general promises which the Government are so frequently making to the House. It is out of line with the professions that the party opposite are constantly making to the country, and is not carrying out in any sense at all the principles for which they are presumably standing. I oppose this proposal.

The Chairman: Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: rose—

The Chairman: I have called the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Before the Financial Secretary speaks, should not there be some Minister representing Scotland to explain these complicated provisions?

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

1.6 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Sir Charles, your predecessor in the Chair indicated that debate on this Money Resolution was narrow and I hope, therefore, that I shall be able to deal with one or two points which have arisen during the course of this debate without incurring your displeasure.
Perhaps I may be allowed, first of all to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson). His indignation, which was very apparent throughout his speech, at what he described as the vagueness of this Resolution, would have been just as relevant or irrelevant during the years that similar Money Resolutions—indeed, very often in identical terms—were moved in this Committee by right hon. Members who now adorn the Opposition Front Bench.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), I think, was under a misapprehension. He objected to the provision in this Money Resolution of authority in connection with the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, which he seemed to think was coming to an end. I can assure the hon. Gentleman first of all that it is not, and if he was not under that apprehension it really does appear that all he tried to say to the


Committee must have been consciously instead of unconsciously irrelevant.

Mr. Janner: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to look at the terms of the Financial Memorandum? What said was that the words:
On the assumption that the 68 tribunals will continue to operate as at present …
were misleading because they were not correct. His right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government told me that they were not going to continue those tribunals.

The Chairman: That surely applies to the Bill but not to the Money Resolution.

Mr. Janner: With respect, I was challenged on this point—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman can reassure himself, and if he would control himself I think I can reassure him. The fact remains that the Act is being retained in force and the system under it is continuing to operate. In the normal way financial cover is given on the assumption indicated in the Financial Memorandum, and really the hon. Gentleman is exciting himself quite unnecessarily if he tries to persuade himself or the Committee that there is anything unusual in the wholly usual procedure being followed.

Mr. Janner: On a point of order. Am I entitled or not to have a reply to a point about which I asked specifically? I asked whether this paragraph was true. I am told that it is untrue. The Minister of Housing and Local Government says it is not correct. He is reducing the tribunals. How can the Financial Secretary say that they are continuing?

The Chairman: I think this is quite a simple matter. This is dealing with expenses.

Mr. G. Lindgren: Further to that point of order. The submission is that not only under the present Government but under the previous Administration the tribunals were being reduced. Is it not now a fact that the 68 tribunals are not in existence? The Financial Secretary is asking for money for something which does not exist.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That may be a point, but it is quite different from that which the hon. Member for Leicester,

North-West put. Let me try once again to reduce the blood pressure of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West. If he will look at the Financial Memorandum which he has quoted, he will see the words, "on the assumpton"; and, having read those, I hope he will apprehend that this is not necessarily a statement of a particular and existing fact. It is specifically, and expressly, "on the assumption."

Mr. Janner: Mr. Janner rose—

The Chairman: If the Financial Secretary does not give way, the hon. Member must resume his seat.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to restrain himself. He must by now be conscious of the fact that he is on a false point.

Mr. John Paton: On a point of order. May I ask for guidance, Sir Charles? The argument which is now put by the Financial Secretary is that he claims sums of money on what, according to his own explanation, is a financial hypothesis. Is that in order?

The Chairman: These are sums of money expended under the Acts which are being continued.

Mr. Paton: But the Financial Secretary has told the Committee that he is proceeding on an assumption; an assumption that it is within the general knowledge of the Committee is unfounded. Is it proper that a representative of the Government Front Bench should make such a proposition?

The Chairman: I shall stop the Financial Secretary if he is out of order, but at present I do not think he is.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am much obliged, Sir Charles, for that indication. May I now try to re-assure the hon. Member? The whole point of the question raised on this particular aspect of the Money Resolution appears to spring from hon. Members opposite entertaining the view that this system may operate less effectively than they wish. If that be their view, then surely it is necessary to make adequate financial provision to cover the operation to the fullest possible extent? If hon. Members opposite want this system to operate properly, it is only right to make provision of this sort. So,


they should express gratitude to H.M. Government for the care which is taken to provide adequate financial cover.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Eric Fletcher) raised the question of the provisions under the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act. As the memorandum makes clear, that expenditure will only arise in the event of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour appointing the board allowed for. I understand that he has at present no intention of so doing but, if the very valuable machinery in the Act has to operate in all circumstances, then it is necessary for Parliament to provide adequate financial cover.
This Money Resolution is in the usual form, making the usual provision custo-

marily accepted by the Committee over a good many years. There are other stages of this Measure in which it is possible for hon. Members to raise points on the merits of which they may be interested, and I hope that this largely formal stage may now be accepted, leaving the later stages to be discussed in the ordinary way.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 289; Noes, 266.

Division No. 7]
AYES
[1.15 a.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Colegate, W. A.
Harden, J. R. E.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Alport, C. J. M.
Cooper, Sqn-Ldr. Albert
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Cranborne, Viscount
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Arbuthnot, John
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Crouch, R. F.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Heald, Sir Lionel


Baker, P. A. D.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Heath, Edward


Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Baldwin, A. E.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Higgs, J. M. C.


Banks, Col. C.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Barber, Anthony
Deedes, W. F.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Barlow, Sir John
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Baxter, A. B.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Donner, P. W.
Hollis, M. C.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hope, Lord John


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Drayson, G. B.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Drewe, C.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Horobin, I. M.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Birch, Nigel
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Bishop, F. P.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Black, C. W.
Erroll, F. J.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Boothby, R. J. G.




Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fell, A.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Finlay, Graeme
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.


Braine, B. R.
Fisher, Nigel
Hurd, A. R.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Fort, R.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Foster, John
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Hylton-Foster H. B. H.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Bullard, D. G.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Kaberry, D.


Burden, F. F. A.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Keeling, Sir Edward


Butcher, H. W.
Godber, J. B.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Campbell, Sir David
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gough, C. F. H.
Lambton, Viscount


Carson, Hon. E.
Gower, H. R.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Cary, Sir Robert
Graham, Sir Fergus
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Channon, H.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Leather, E. H. C.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Cole, Norman
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)




Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Oakshott, H. D.
Speir, R. M.


Lindsay, Martin
Odey, G. W.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Linstead, H. N.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Stevens, G. P.


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Low, A. R. W.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Osborne, C.
Storey, S.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Partridge, E.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Perkins, W. R D.
Studholme, H. G.


McAdden, S. J.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Summers, G. S.


McCallum, Major D.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Powell, J. Enoch
Teeling, W.


McKibbin, A. J.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Profumo, J. D.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Raikes, H V.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Tilney, John


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Renton, D. L. M.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Turner, H. F. L.


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Robertson, Sir David
Turton, R. H.


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Markham, Major S. F.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Vane, W. M. F.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Roper, Sir Harold
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Marples, A. E.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Russell, R. S.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Maude, Angus
Ryder, Capt. R. E D.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Maudling, R.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Watkinson, H. A.


Mellor, Sir John
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Molson, A. H E.
Scott, R. Donald
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Shepherd, William
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Nicholls, Harmar
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wills, G.


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Wood, Hon. R.


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Snadden, W. McN.



Nugent, G. R. H.
Soames, Capt. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Nutting, Anthony
Spearman, A. C. M.
Mr. Vosper and Mr. Redmayne.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Callaghan, L. J.
Ewart, R.


Adams, Richard
Carmichael, J.
Fernyhough, E.


Albu, A. H.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Field, W. J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Champion, A. J.
Fienburgh, W.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Chapman, W. D.
Finch H. J.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Chetwynd, G. R.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Clunie, J.
Follick, M.


Awbery, S. S.
Coldrick, W.
Foot, M. M.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Collick, P. H.
Forman, J. C.


Baird, J.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Balfour, A.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Freeman, John (Watford)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Bartley, P.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Gibson, C. W.


Bence, C. R.
Daines, P.
Glanville, James


Benn, Wedgwood
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Gooch, E. G.


Benson, G.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon P. C.


Beswick, F.
Davies, A Edward (Stoke, N.)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)


Bing, G. H. C.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Grey, C. F.


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Blenkinsop, A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Blyton, W. R.
Deer, G.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Boardman, H.
Delargy, H. J.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Dodds, N. N.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Bowden, H. W.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hamilton, W. W.


Bowles, F. G.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hannan, W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hardy, E. A.


Brockway, A. F.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hargreaves, A.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Edelman, M.
Hastings, S.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Hayman, F. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Burke, W. A.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Herbison, Miss M.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hobson, C. R.







Holman, P.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Mort, D. L.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Houghton, Douglas
Moyle, A.
Sparks, J. A.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Mulley, F. W.
Steele, T.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Murray, J. D.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Nally, W.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Oldfield, W. H.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oliver, G. H.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Orbach, M.
Swingler, S. T.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Oswald, T.
Sylvester, G. O.


Janner, B.
Padley, W. E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Paget, R. T.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Pannell, Charles
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Parker, J.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Paton, J.
Timmons, J.


Keenan, W.
Pearson, A.
Tomney, F.


Kenyon, G.
Peart, T. F.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


King, Dr. H. M.
Popplewell, E.
Watkins, T. E.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Porter, G.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Weitzman, D.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Proctor, W. T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Lewis, Arthur
Rankin, John
West, D. G.


Lindgren, G. S.
Reeves, J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


MacColl, J. E.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


McGhee, H. G.
Rhodes, H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


McInnes, J.
Robens, Rt. Hon A.
Wigg, George


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


McLeavy, F.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wilkins, W. A.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, David (Neath)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Ross, William
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Royle, C.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Manuel, A. C.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Short, E. W.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Mayhew, C. P.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mellish, R. J.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Wyatt, W. L.


Mikardo, Ian
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Yates, V. F.


Mitchison, G. R.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Moody, A. S.
Slater, J.



Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morley, R.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Mr. Wallace and Mr. James Johnson.


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Snow, J. W.



Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported this day.

Orders of the Day — SHOPS (CLOSING HOURS)

1.29 a.m.

Mr. W. E. Padley: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Shops (Revocation of Winter Closing Provisions) Order, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 1862), dated 21st October, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd October, 1952, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
I regret that it is at an early hour of the morning that such an important matter, affecting the working lives of about one and a half million people, must be

discussed. Nevertheless, I hope that the issues involved will receive adequate attention from the House.
As many hon. Members will know, I am the President of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers' Union. My view, therefore, on the question of shop closing hours is inevitably influenced by my association with distributive workers. I want, however, to emphasise at the outset that this is not an issue in which consumer interests are opposed to those of shop workers. I shall demonstrate that all the great representative organisations of working women and consumers support this Prayer. I shall demonstrate that if the Government succeed with this Order they will penalise the consumer by higher prices as much as they will penalise the shop worker through longer hours.
In public discussion on this Order there appears to have been a good deal of confusion, so I think it desirable that I should state quite clearly what the position is with regard to the Shops Act and the Winter Closing provisions which have been in existence for the last 13 years. The Shops Act of 1928 provided that the general closing hour for shops should be 8 p.m., and 9 p.m. on one late night. In 1939 the winter closing regulations provided that the general closing hour should be 6 p.m. with 7.30 p.m. on the late night, local authorities having the power to extend these hours to 7 p.m. and 8 p.m. in cases of proved public need in the localities. Therefore, the effect of the present Order is to resurrect the closing hours of a quarter of a century ago.
Tonight, I want to argue that a Conservative Government, above all other Governments, should follow the precedent laid down many years ago. During the First World War powers were taken, under D.O.R.A., with regard to the general closing hours of shops. These emergency powers were continued by the Coalition Government, by a Labour Government, and by a Conservative Government from 1918 until 1928.
In 1946 the Labour Government set up the Gowers Committee to investigate the whole question of shop hours. That Committee found, among other things, that the hours which this Order will restore were quite unnecessarily late. They proposed amending legislation to provide for general closing hours of 7 p.m. and 8 p.m., with the right of local authorities to reduce those hours to 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. in appropriate circumstances.
My submission is that the precedent followed after the First World War is the correct line to be taken after the late war. It is true that some of the reasons which were advanced at the time the winter closing regulations were brought in in 1939 have now disappeared, but others remain and have as much force today as they had then. Certainly, the black-out and the blitz have disappeared, but I am not convinced that the need for fuel economy in heating, if not in lighting, is any less important now than it was then.
Moreover, one of the biggest considerations was the question of manpower. Between 1939–44 insured workers

in the distributive trades dropped by 900,000, and one powerful reason why changes were required in the closing hours of shops during the war was that there were virtually no reserved occupations in the distributive trades. Today, the need for manpower economy is still urgent if Britain's economic problems are to be solved.
I want right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen to understand the anger and bitterness which has swept through the distributive trades on this issue. Before the House rose I warned the Home Secretary that this Order would be regarded as a gross attack on the working conditions of shopworkers. There is a long and bitter history attached to the fight for reasonable hours in the distributive trades. Until the winter closing regulations came in in 1939 the average working week in shops was about 55 hours; and a Select Committee of this House, reporting in the early thirties, talked of 80, 75, and 73 hours being worked, and concluded that probably 100,000 persons were working 60 hours or more a week. That was when the general closing hour was 8 o'clock and 9 o'clock on the late night.
Some people will say the consumers' interest should be paramount. Fortunately, at the time of the Gowers inquiry substantial information was collected on the attitude of large organisations in this country. The T.U.C. represents 8 million workers, including 1,317,000 women workers, and it should be a reliable witness on the real needs of vast bodies of working people, including working women. In evidence to the Gowers Committee, the T.U.C. said that they were concerned to ensure (a) that reasonable shopping facilities are provided for all classes of workpeople, and (b) that reasonable hours are worked by work-people in the distributive trades.
They proposed that the general closing hour should be 6 p.m., that local authorities should be empowered in cases of proved local need to extend the hour up to a ceiling of 7 p.m. on weekdays and 8 p.m. on one late day, and that local authorities should also have the power to fix a closing hour earlier than 6 p.m. In short, the T.U.C. supported the general view I am arguing now.
Moreover, that evidence submitted by the T.U.C. is in favour of general closing


hours which are permitted in all respects by the winter closing regulations. They have also the Standing Joint Committee of Working Women's Organisations, which is far and away the most representative organisation in Britain of women, housewives and women working in factories. Its evidence, broadly speaking, followed that of the T.U.C., and the specific hours it advocated are well within the terms of the winter closing regulations, which are the subject of this discussion. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) will elaborate the view of the working woman with her own robust eloquence.
Next, let me take the Co-operative movement, with its 11 million consumers as shopkeepers. They elect their own boards of directors. They can go to their quarterly or half-yearly meetings and discuss policy, including shop hours. Has there been any demand up and down Britain in the Co-operative movement, at its democratic meetings, for later closing? There has been no demand at all. I challenge the Home Secretary to produce a single instance.
But although the T.U.C., the Standing Joint Committee of Working Women's Organisations and the Co-operative movement are a formidable collection of organisations, representing millions of people who support the policy I am advocating tonight, they are not alone. There is another body, with a distinguished, representative membership and a long history. I refer to the Early Closing Association.
The Early Closing Association certainly cannot be said to be under the influence of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. The present Prime Minister has long been associated with it. Today, he remains its President. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Since I was going to make that reference to the right hon. Gentleman, I sent him a note when I thought the Prayer would be taken on Thursday saying that in view of his long association with the early closing movement, I hoped he would be able to attend personally. The Vice-President of the Early Closing Association is the present Minister of Fuel and Power. In days gone by, you yourself,

Mr. Speaker, rendered distinguished service to that organisation as Parliamentary Chairman.
The Early Closing Association advocates a 6 o'clock general closing hour. It has no other purpose than the objects of the Prayer. Therefore, I was counting on powerful contributions tonight both from the Prime Minister and from the Minister of Fuel and Power. At least, I was aware that the Prime Minister had real qualifications to speak, because in 1911 the subject of tonight's debate was identical with the subject of a speech from the Prime Minister, from which I propose to quote. In supporting the Second Reading of the Shops Bill of 1911, the right hon. Gentleman, among many other excellent sentences, said this:
Do not let us be deterred by any of these difficulties from coming forward to grapple with the real evil and from applying an effective remedy and relief to that evil.
The lives of nearly a million shop assistants, many of them in the joyous years of youth, are under such a pressure of circumstances at the present time that they are lives of continual deprivation the work of this great body of people being stupidly, aimlessly spread out and sprawled over the whole of the week.
The shop assistants of this country do not mind hard work … What they ask for with increasing force is that after the work is over there shall be a fair and reasonable opportunity for rest, for leisure, for recreation, for the pleasures of the country, and for the pleasures of family life …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1911; Vol. 23, c. 1752–3.]
In those days, the Prime Minister succeeded in getting two of the points of the 1911 Shops Act—a weekly half-holiday and provisions for meal-times. The third clause, which is the subject of this debate, was dropped because he was harassed by the party opposite and by some men in his own party. That Clause was the clause of limiting the working week of shop workers to 60 hours. It was defeated in this House in 1911, and I have already illustrated that until the winter closing regulations were introduced in 1939, on the testimony of a Select Committee of this House, probably 100,000 persons were still working the 60-hour week against which the Prime Minister spoke with feeling and passion, and in noble prose, way back in 1911. When he considers that piece of history, perhaps the Home Secretary will understand that I was not exaggerating, before the House rose, when I warned that this action on the part of


the Government would lead to anger and bitterness.
If this Prayer fails tonight, the general closing hours become eight o'clock, and nine o'clock on one late night, except in those cases where local authorities have taken advantage of the powers to reduce them to seven o'clock and eight o'clock. That extension of hours will be costly to the consumer, it will damage the working conditions of the shop worker and, as I shall demonstrate in a moment, it will be bad from the point of view of the national interest.
Some people argue that it would be possible for the hours proposed by the Government—in the sense, at any rate, that they will be the hours which will be permitted if this Prayer fails—to be operated without hardship to shop-workers, if there were shift and rota systems. In Britain today, on a narrow definition, there are 550,000 shops. On a wider, and for the purposes of the Shops Act a more responsible definition, there are nearly 750,000 retail establishments of one kind or another. Every accepted authority in the distributive trades agrees that the average number of workers per shop is one and three-quarters. That obviously includes many shops where there is no assistant at all, beyond the owner; the average shop with one or two assistants; and the relatively few shops with larger numbers.
Shifts and rota systems would be practicable only on one of three conditions: first, a fundamental re-organisation of the distributive trades, eliminating all small shops; secondly, an enormous increase in over-time working; or, thirdly, an enormous increase in manpower in the distributive trades.
Someone may ask how it was possible for the hours of eight o'clock and nine o'clock to apply before the war. The answer is simple: there are today about 400,000 fewer workers in the distributive trades than there were before the war. In the middle of 1950, the research department of my own union calculated that there were between 300,000 and 400,000 fewer, and we concluded that if account were taken of part-time workers it was much nearer the figure of 400,000. In February, 1951, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), speaking with the authority of his pos-

ition as Minister of Labour, confirmed the 400,000 figure.
Make no mistake: when due allowance has been made for minor factors, such as the very, very limited introduction of self-service, the curtailment of some competitive delivery services—as, for example, in the case of milk distribution—the overwhelming reason for that reduction in manpower is the changed shopping habits of the public and the earlier closing of shops.
Does any hon. Member in this House contemplate with equanimity a rapid growth of manpower in the distributive trades by several hundred thousand? Where shall they come from—from the coal mines, the steel mills, agriculture, engineering, building? Would it really be in the national interest? It would be costly. An additional 400,000 workers would cost well over £100 million a year. But let us be moderate. Let us say that no more than 300,000 should be taken into this calculation, which I am making tonight. The cost of 300,000 would be in the region of £75 million a year.
I have already pointed out that the average hours worked in shops before the war were 55 a week. That is brought out by the research work of my own union, and by the evidence in the Select Committee of this House on shop assistants, and if hon. Members are interested they can look up a speech by Mr. Ernest Brown, who was Minister of Labour in 1936, confirming the figures that I have just given. The average of 55 hours included people working in strongly organised firms under trade union agreements where the hours were 48 or less. It also included those working over 60 hours. But about half the total number of shop workers were working between 53 and 57 hours a week. Today, the working week is between 44 and 46 hours.
It is quite obvious, therefore, that if we are to have a restoration of pre-war shopping hours it means, on a basis of strict calculation, at least 10 million hours overtime per week, and under the wages councils' orders that must be paid for time-and-a-quarter for the first two hours, and time-and-a-half thereafter. Any hon. Member who likes to do that sum will find that it totals £75 million a year. Again, let us be moderate. Let us assume that it is only 8 million. Then the cost would be about £60 million.
I want to emphasise that I am using these figures with caution and restraint. If I wanted, I could make a case that £175 million was the absolute minimum. I have made no allowance for overheads such as heating and lighting, but I am being moderate and I am saying that on the most cautious interpretation of the facts relating to manpower and hours, the cost will be somewhere between £135 million and £175 million a year. That is between 4s. and 5s. a week for each family of four.
In discussions on shopping hours, particularly in some of the newspapers, there is an assumption that a consumer service such as shopping hours is something which is given away. There have been one or two newspapers which have been gladly and gratuitously offering women of this country longer shopping hours. If the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who made a reputation with eggs during the last Parliament, hawked six eggs around and offered them to the housewives, no doubt he could give them away, but if he asked 5s. for them they would probably be refused. A consumer service such as shopping hours has to be paid for in the same way as any other commodity or service to the community. Someone may ask why this system of distribution was not so costly in the years before the war. The answer is simple—a wide-spread and brutal sweating of shop workers.
I have already referred to the speech of Mr. Ernest Brown on 8th May, 1936. My own union conducted an inquiry about the same time, and that showed that the average wage for adult shop assistants in the grocery trade was 38s. 6d. There were 22·3 per cent. receiving 30s. or less, 58 per cent. 40s. or less, and 89·9 per cent. were receiving 50s. or less. Let us also remember that these wage rates must be judged against a background of an average working week of 55, or even 60 hours in a considerable number of cases.
There will be the danger if the general closing hour of pre-war days is restored that the pirates will get busy. Neither the general public, nor the general body of employers want general closing hours of 8 or 9 p.m. The most representative organisations of working shopkeepers feel as passionately on this issue

as do the representatives of the union with which I am associated.

Mr. Frederic Harris: It is not compulsory.

Mr. Padley: The reason why there is a danger of restoration of pre-war shop hours is the one referred to by the Prime Minister, in 1911; and that is that in conditions of no organisation, and a very great many different shops, the pirates will compel the others to keep open. Mr. Herman Kent, leader of the working shopkeepers in the grocery trade, has called them "rogue elephants", and I think that this action by the Government has given the green light to black reaction. The apparent leadership in the Government—and I emphasise "apparent"—in the move for later closing will encourage the "rogue elephants" in the distributive trades.
The Minister has given an assurance in writing that this is without prejudice as to whether 6 or 7 p.m. is the closing hour if and when amending legislation is brought forward. But I have searched the Queen's Speech, and there is no promise of amending legislation in that. Instead, we are asked, for an unspecified period of time, to return to the 8 or 9 p.m. closing hour laid down a quarter of a century ago. If this House fails in its responsibility tonight, there will be no alternative for my union, but to fight where we have the strength, and to use mass picketing in other areas. During the summer months, attempts were made by the pirates to keep open; but in South Wales, where we had industrial action, the pirates shut on the first night. In Kidderminster, where we were not in a strong position in the shop in question, we went in for mass picketing, and the pirates closed down within a few days. I put it to this House that that is not the ideal way to deal with these great social problems.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I was not quite sure whether the hon. Member referred to mass picketing in Kidderminster. Would he allow me to say that there is no evidence of mass picketing. In fact, there were eight or so members of his union or associated organisations who were immediately offset by about the same number of people representing the appropriate shop traders in the town and in that area. If that is


mass picketing I am surprised. It seemed to me to be a puppet demonstration.

Mr. Padley: The hon. Member exaggerates the powers of members of my organisation. Apparently it was eight members of my union who defeated this attempt of the pirates to keep the shops open later. As for the counter organisation, all I can say is that it was so unrepresentative that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did not call it into consultation in August, when this issue was discussed with both sides of the distributive trades.
The action which the Government are taking threatens the interests of the shop workers. It threatens the return of longer hours and lower wages. It threatens the consumer interest because it will tend to raise the cost of distribution by £135 million or £175 million a year, or 4s. or 5s. a week for the average family of four. It threatens the national interest because it will lead to hundreds of thousands more workers going into the distributive trades. It will certainly not assist industrial peace.
I ask, therefore, that this Prayer should succeed, and if the Home Secretary will not move then I urge, by the pages of HANSARD, that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister should follow the paths of righteousness laid down by the Early Closing Association and countermand this Order.

2.2 a.m.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I beg to second the Motion.
I shall be very brief and I shall not cover any of the points referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley). I have been trying to find out who wants an increase in shopping hours. I cannot find anybody in any section of the consumers or among the shop assistants themselves. If the Home Secretary will give us some concrete instances of people who have made applications to him for an increase in shopping hours we might enter into a discussion about it, but I cannot find anyone anywhere, either in the chambers of commerce or the organisations responsible for small or large traders, who has made any application for such an increase.
I can only assume that this is another of the Conservative Party's promises in the last Election, when they stated that they were going to set into reverse various things that had been done previously. Setting into reverse means going back to some of the bad conditions. I was a shop worker in 1914–18, when the shops closed at eight o'clock each weekday and at nine o'clock on Saturdays. This sort of thing leaves the shop workers no opportunity for any sort of recreation. We have progressed since those days. The inquiries I have been making have shown that very many shop assistants, particularly the younger ones, use the opportunity they have been given by early closing to increase their knowledge by going to night schools.
By extending the shopping hours we shall completely deprive them of this opportunity of continuing their education. I do not know whether the Home Secretary has any information on this matter, but the information I have is that many young shop assistants go to night school for the purpose of learning dressmaking, housekeeping and other extra subjects. Today, we have a young population which is entirely different from that of the years between the wars. They want something different to standing behind a counter for 11 hours on weekdays and 12 hours on Saturdays. They have some other things to learn, some other opportunities to exploit.
I have been making inquiries in consumer circles. I cannot find anyone there who wants any addition to the hours. There were difficulties early on for the consumers, but they have adjusted their shopping arrangements to the hours now in operation. I have inquired from the nursing profession whether they find themselves in any difficulties with their shopping. I find, as everybody knows, that their hours have been considerably improved, and that everyone of them has a full day off per week, in which to do shopping.
I have looked at the question of pensioners, and have investigated whether it is necessary to have any increase in shopping hours because of the inability of the pensioner to shop on the day on which the pension is drawn. I find that pensioners of every type draw their pensions either on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, so there is no question of


difficulty in shopping with them. I have also looked at the issue from the point of view of the industrial worker. They are paid on Thursdays or Fridays, and their position has been adjusted to conform to the reduced shopping hours. It would be foolish to upset the whole of the arrangements that have been made to meet the shopping hours by increasing those hours.
The skilled workers are working a five-day week, so that they have one day for shopping. The only people that I can discover who have any grumble at all about the shopping hours are the shop assistants themselves, and if the shopping hours are increased it does not help them, because they will be confined to the shops which are working longer hours. I can find no one else in the different sections of the community who want the additional shopping hours. Perhaps the Home Secretary will tell us who does? Is it the big multiple shops or central organisations in the large cities who want additional shopping hours?
The suburban shops do not want it. They are quite satisfied with the hours they are working at the moment. If it is some of the big multiple stores who want longer hours, are they suggesting that the suburban shops should keep open, too, because I do not think that the suburban shops will remain open? The people living in those areas have adjusted their shopping to the hours that the shops are open.
We ought to be told by the Home Secretary whether it is some of the large multiple shops which are wanting these longer hours. Why are they trying to increase the hours of labour of shop assistants? Is it to draw trade from the suburban areas into the central parts of the cities and thus get extra shoppers? I do not think that is so, because those who have knowledge of the business know that many of these big multiple stores close their shops on Saturday afternoons.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I wonder if the hon. Lady's enquiries extended to leading the Gowers Committee, which had an enquiry made by the Government Research Unit at the time in 1947. It was reported that
30 per cent. of the shopping public want a closing hour after 6.15 p.m. As many as 41 per cent. of this group are persons mainly responsible for the household shopping.

Mrs. Braddock: I have read the Report of the Committee, but that was five years ago. Since that time, as I have said, people have made adjustments which enable them to obtain all the things they require during the present shopping hours. If any hon. Member, or the Home Secretary, can tell us who wants longer hours we will know what specific argument to put forward. I can assure the House that in all the investigations I have made since I was asked to second this Prayer I could find no body of people which had any strong desire to have the shop hours increased. Unless the Home Secretary can give us specific information on the point I hope that this Prayer will succeed.

2.12 a.m.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: I think that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) rather spoiled his case by overstating it. He said that unless the Prayer succeeded, longer hours and lower wages for shop workers were threatened. I think that that is utter nonsense, and that he knows it to be so. This Prayer does not affect wages. He also suggested that the only way the longer hours could be worked without increasing the cost of distribution, or increasing the cost of manpower, would be on a shift or rota system. Many other industries have to work shift or rota systems. Why should not shop assistants do what other workers do?
I want to answer the question which the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) put: who would like longer hours? In the city from which I come, Leicester, we have two main industries. I have to plead an interest, as I am interested in a number of hosiery factories. Eighty per cent. of the workers in the boot and shoe factories and in the hosiery factories are women, 75 per cent. of whom are married. During the war these women did a magnificent job for the country, and they are doing so today. After the war many of them went back to their normal domestic life. Then a Socialist Minister of Labour, I think in 1948, appealed to married women to return to industry to help the nation out of its difficulties.
As a result, thousands of married women went back into industry. The working hours in the two industries I


have mentioned are mostly from 8 a.m. to 6.15 p.m. If the shops are closed at six o'clock, these married women, who are doing a fine job of work, have no chance to do their shopping. They work five days a week.

Mr. George Jeger: Mr. George Jeger (Goole) rose—

Mr. Osborne: I have listened most attentively to the Opposition speakers, and I ask for the same consideration.

Mr. Jeger: Mr. Jeger rose—

Mr. Speaker: One at a time. Mr. Osborne.

Mr. Osborne: I am trying to make a statement on behalf of people who work in my factory. It is said that they could do their shopping on Saturdays. The hon. Lady said that many of the big shops were closed on Saturday afternoons.

Mrs. Braddock: Not all of them.

Mr. Osborne: That means that these married women who are still doing a fine job for the country are left with Saturday mornings to get their shopping done. They have also their housework and their children to look after. I am making the plea for my workers that the shops should be left open much later than they are at present. It does not mean that the men and women in the shops will have to work longer hours. If some shops wish to open from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m., and others from 12 noon until 10 p.m., why should they not do so?

Mr. Padley: On the day on which the hon. Gentleman can convince the Leicester Chamber of Commerce of that point of view his idea will be practical. As it is, his idea is pure fantasy because there is no group of shopkeepers in any city or town who share his views.

Mr. Osborne: I am not speaking on behalf of shopkeepers, but on behalf of industrial workers. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are justly concerned about this matter, and I was putting a point which I thought would appeal to them. One day last week I went round my factory where women are doing a very good job in the export trade. [An HON. MEMBER: "Close earlier."] Go back to the bar.

Hon. Members: Order, order.

Mr. Speaker: I do hope that the House can proceed without these exchanges.

Mr. Osborne: If I transgressed I withdraw my remark. At least, I was provoked. I have listened attentively to what hon. Members opposite had to say. I have not been given a hearing. What are they afraid of? [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I have withdrawn. Keep your ears open.
Last week I went round our factory and I noticed a number of benches only half filled. I said to the forewoman, "Why are these machines standing?" I was told that a certain number of these women had to take half-days off to do their shopping. Anyone who knows anything about production knows that if you have a certain number of benches undermanned the productivity of your factory, the flow of goods, is thrown out. Your production drops, your costs increase, and it is not possible to do the work you would otherwise like to do.
I put it to hon. Members opposite that these women have to earn their living in a highly competitive trade; they are not in sheltered industry, as are the shop assistants. Their livelihood is earned only in competition in foreign markets with the Japanese, Germans, French, and Italians, who produce similar goods. Therefore, it is wrong to overlook the interests of these married women workers who, in response to an appeal made by a Socialist Minister of Labour, have come back into industry and are doing two jobs extremely well. They ought to be encouraged, not penalised.
It should be possible for a certain number of shops to be left open well after 6.15 p.m., when these women finish their work, so that they can do their shopping. I warn hon. Members opposite that if the married women in industry are driven back to their home life our export trade will fall and we shall find our economic position even worse than it is today. Most prayers are answered, but this Prayer does not deserve to be.
To the hon. Member who moved it, let me say that I was very pleased to hear him quote the Prime Minister's speech of 1911. He paid tribute to him for the work the Prime Minister had done for the workers in those days. What a pity those words were not quoted at the Election, instead of the stinking "Finger on the trigger."

Mr. Padley: I also said the party opposite forced the right hon. Gentleman to drop the 60-hour maximum working week. That is why it could not be quoted about the Prime Minister at the recent Election, when he led the party opposite.

Mr. Osborne: Allowing for that, I heard the hon. Member say that the Prime Minister secured two of three objectives he had set his heart upon. Those two things were to the benefit of the shopworkers, but no credit was given to him.

Mr. Speaker: This is going very wide of the Order.

2.24 a.m.

Miss Alice Bacon: Mention has been made of the Gowers Report. Together with two hon. Members opposite, I was a member of the Gowers Committee, which sat for a considerable time hearing evidence about the closing hours of shops. I did not realise until I became a member of the Committee what a complicated business Shop Acts were. We had to consider such things as when a shop is not a shop, the laws with regard to extensions, the law with regard to tobacco and sweets in cinemas, and many other complicated questions. We had to reconcile the hours of shop assistants with the needs of the public.
Mention has also been made of the needs of the public. I am not going to say that everybody in the country does not at some time experience difficulty with regard to shopping. I would put, first, the difficulty experienced by those women who are at work and find that the shops are closed in the lunch hour. That is probably the most difficult thing that faces a housewife who works in industry.
I should like to refer to the basic principles of the Order. It has the effect of making the winter closing hours 8 o'clock, with 9 o'clock on the late night whereas hitherto the winter closing hours have been 6 o'clock and 7.30. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Gowers Committee recommended that the hours should be 7 o'clock, with 8 o'clock on the late night, but that local authorities should have the power to fix an earlier hour.
I should also like to quote paragraph 18 of the Gowers Report, which says, on shop closing hours:
Our witnesses on this subject fell … into two classes, advocates of six o'clock with seven on the late night, and advocates of seven o'clock with eight on the late night. Opinion was practically unanimous that the hours laid down by the Act of 1928 (eight and nine) were unnecessarily late. We accept this view.
The Gowers Committee said that they accepted the unanimous view of everybody who came before them that 8 o'clock, with 9 o'clock on the late night was much too late. But that is precisely what the Order will do. I am wondering whether the two hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite, one of whom occupies a seat on the Front Bench as a Parliamentary Secretary, will tonight vote for the Order when they signed the Gowers Report, which says that the unanimous opinion of the witnesses was against an 8 o'clock and 9 o'clock closing hour.
On the more general question, the Gowers Committee were not empowered in their terms of reference to make any mention of the hours of shop assistants, but the Committee did envisage some long-term protection for shop assistants. In paragraph 11, which deals with the evidence of the T.U.C., there is a quotation from the T.U.C.'s evidence to the Gowers Committee, which says:
'the method of securing a shorter working week for shop assistants by curtailing the shopping week, whilst feasible and desirable when shopping facilities were unnecessarily extensive, is now reaching its limits.'
It goes on to say:
'We understand that the question is actually being considered by a Commission of Enquiry under the Wages Councils Act. We have had this in mind in making our recommendations.'
I underline what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) that this was five years ago and that since that time many more industrial workers are working a five-day week. The Gowers Committee suggested many reforms in shop closing hours, but what the Order does is to single out one particular aspect and to provide later shop closing hours, but with no legislation whatever on the other things envisaged by the Gowers Report.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) said about the


matter of cost is impressive, but I should like to say this to him. Eventually, with proper safeguards, we shall probably get to the point where every shop assistant is not in the shop at a particular time. I also think that from a long-term view we must consider the whole of the distribution system, and it may be that we can get some saving by not having as many small shops as we have at present. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes. We need a saving in distribution. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am only saying that this is one of the things we shall have to look at in the whole question of distribution.
The Government are asking us to reject this Prayer without looking at the long-term implications. I believe that the closing hours ought to have remained as they were until the Government were in a position to look at the whole question. I hope, therefore, that we shall approve this Prayer and shall not accept the Government's recommendations; and that we shall press for the whole question to be considered in the light of the Gowers Report and in the light of the whole of our distributive system.

2.31 a.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon) referred to the Gowers Report, and I think there should have been more reference to it, because it underlies the whole of the position. Leaving out the question of the late night, for the sake of simplicity, the Report recommends 7 p.m. as the closing hour for shops. The Shops Act, 1928, lays down 8 p.m. and the war-time Order, which has been continued year by year until now, made a 6 p.m. closing hour for shops. If we continue the Order, we have six o'clock, which is one hour earlier than the Gowers Report recommended; and if we abrogate the Order, we have eight o'clock, which is one hour later than the Gowers Report recommended. The hon. Lady asked the Joint Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department—

Miss Bacon: I did not refer to the Under-Secretary, but to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture.

Mr. Bell: I apologise; I meant the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry

of Agriculture. She asked him whether he would vote against the Prayer, having signed the Gowers Report, which says that the correct hour should be seven o'clock. I want to ask the hon. Lady whether she is going to vote against the Order and in favour of the Prayer, when she put her signature to this:
We believe that arguments such as these, appropriate enough in the days when shops used to stay open until midnight, are now out of date. … It is now the public's turn for consideration.
That was justifying the recommendation of seven o'clock, as distinct from eight o'clock, and—

Miss Bacon: Could I remind the hon. Gentleman that I said in my speech that, after considering the representations made to us by many organisations and the public generally, we came to the conclusion that eight o'clock to nine o'clock was not really in the interests of the public?

Mr. Bell: The hon. Lady cannot have it all possible ways. The Gowers Committee said six o'clock was too early, and said quite definitely and emphatically, "It is now the public's turn for consideration." It is perfectly true that they also said that eight o'clock was too late, but the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend both put their signatures to the Report, and what I am saying is that, whether we abrogate the Defence Regulation or continue it in force, we do not get what the Gowers Committee recommended.

Mr. Padley: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that under the winter closing regulations local authorities can extend the hour from six to seven o'clock, and in one case to eight o'clock; and does not that meet the point he is making?

Mr. Bell: Of course not, because the Gowers Committee considered this point and recommended that the normal closing hours should be changed.

Miss Bacon: The Gowers Committee did not suggest that the local authority should have power to make an extension; they said they should have power to make it an hour earlier.

Mr. Bell: The Gowers Report recommends seven o'clock as a desirable standard hour for the closing of shops.


That is the basic point about which this debate must turn, and there is no avoiding the fact that for the standard hour of the closing of shops we either get six o'clock, if we support the Prayer, or eight o'clock, if we support the Order. I am the first to agree with the hon. Lady—I did so last year under the previous Government when this matter was debated—that 8 o'clock, and 9 o'clock on the late night, is too late, and I think most hon. Members on this side of the House will probably agree with me.
The point, however, is that we cannot implement the Gowers Report without legislation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not introduce legislation?"] It does not lie in the mouths of hon. Members opposite to ask that question. The Gowers Committee was set up at the end of 1946. I believe its terms of reference were dated 1st January, 1947. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and the then Secretary of State for Scotland specially asked that Committee to make an urgent interim report on the question of closing hours, and they made a separate interim report in April, 1947. That was very quick—four months. That was over five years ago. For 4½ years after receiving that Report the party opposite did nothing about it. For three of those years they had a majority of 200 in this House. They can hardly say that the reason why they did not do this was because they had more important things on hand.

Mrs. Braddock: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that there was no necessity to do anything while the Order was in force? If the Order remains on, as it is at the moment, until there is time for legislation to deal with the recommendations of the Gowers Report, we have no need to be sitting here at the moment. But the suggestion is to alter it.

Mr. Bell: If there was no need for any legislation of that character, I cannot understand why the right hon. Member for South Shields, the former Home Secretary, asked for an urgent early interim report on the question of shop closing hours. It must have been because he thought something needed to be done about it. The reason why nothing was done about it was quite simply that conflicting pressures were being brought to bear inside the party opposite.
The Gowers Committee, which was appointed by the last Government, contained a membership which certainly drew upon all parties and all spheres of experience. I think that the hon. Lady who served on it would agree that there was certainly no Conservative bias on the Committee, and yet that Committee reported unanimously in favour of a standard closing hour of 7 p.m., and reported unanimously in the sense that it was now the consumers' turn for consideration.
That was the burden of their report, and that was a very difficult report for the party opposite to swallow when the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) was agitating in the opposite direction. I do not blame him for doing that. He represented the body of which he is the President, as he very properly told us tonight.
I hope that when the opportunity occurs, which I hope will be soon, my right hon. Friend will introduce legislation implementing the Report of the Gowers Committee. I think it was an admirable Report. It considered the whole question very carefully and impartially indeed, looking at it from the points of view of the shop assistant, the shop owner and the shopping public, all of whom ought to be considered in a matter of this kind. They reached balanced conclusions covering the whole field which certainly should be, and I hope will be, embodied in legislation. It is really a most unfair criticism to make of this Government that in the time at their disposal so far, they have not introduced a Bill which the last Government in over four years never introduced.
Just one word upon the broader aspect to which the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, North-East referred. We have one day to get down to a less clumsy method of restricting shop hours than simply closing the shop. There are many difficulties in the way, the hon. Member for Ogmore indicated some, but as the T.U.C. said in the Report which it submitted to the Gower's Committee,
The method of securing a shorter working week for shop assistants by curtailing the shopping week, while feasible and desirable when shopping facilities were unnecessarily extensive, is now reaching its limits.
I think that that must be the conclusion which ordinary, commonsense people will


also reach. In the old days, when work went on until 11 or 12 p.m., the only way to root out the evil was to close the shops. The Gowers Committee states that that evil is cured—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Well, I will read what the Committee stated:
On the former question, the first thing to observe is that legislation fixing the hour at which shops must close cannot in itself ensure to shop assistants working hours which are in line with present-day practice in industry or, indeed, any definite maximum at all. It is not an instrument apt for the purpose. We are satisfied that it has been of the greatest benefit in saving shop assistants from having to work hours grossly excessive. That has already been achieved.
And then the Report comes to the comments by the T.U.C. which I mentioned a few moments ago.
That must be the line for the future, and I hope it will not be made a party matter, but that we shall try to evolve a method by which this desirable end shall be achieved.
I have not been to the United States, but I understand that there, to some extent, reasonable hours are combined with very extensive shopping facilities for those who want them.

Mr. H. Boardman: Is the hon. Member aware that the Anglo-American Productivity Committee on retailing has just reported that in some American towns there are shops working 17 hours a day?

Hon. Members: Shops, not assistants.

Mr. Bell: I do not want to get involved in a matter on which I am not really well informed; but I understand that it is shops, and not shop assistants, which are operating for those hours.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: Would the hon. Member agree that the recent investigation by a deputation from this country into shop conditions in the U.S.A. has reported that there is one late night at 9 p.m. and that all other days with the exception of the one day off end at 5.30 p.m.? Forty hours a week are worked and there is a five-day week, and if an assistant works in the evening extra pay is given for loss of leisure and extra pay is given for working on the late night.

Mr. Bell: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I gather, furthermore,

that they work a 40-hour week. That is the sort of thing we should like to see here.
The fact is that there is a permissive power for the shops to stay open. I cannot believe that if there is no real demand for them to stay open they will, in fact, do so. If there is a real demand that demand ought to be satisfied. One cannot but refer to the inquiry which was carried out for the Gowers Committee under the aegis of the last Government in 1947, when they said that 30 per cent. of the shopping public wanted shops to remain open after 6.15 p.m. because those were the factory hours and they were working people who needed the facility to shop on their way home.
They considered the fact that there was Saturday morning on which shopping could be done, but they did not consider that that was adequate. They said:
We doubt whether even in present circumstances six o'clock closing is free from hardship to the public. We asked many advocates of that hour the question when a woman who worked in a factory or office up to, say, 5.30 p.m. was to do her shopping. No-one gave us a satisfactory answer; some said on her way to work, some in the luncheon hour, and some on the late day. We do not believe there is a satisfactory answer.
Those are considerations which the House has to weigh up in connection with this matter. I would point out that we now have a very considerable measure of full employment. The hon. Member for Ogmore referred to the question of economy in the use of manpower. I wish he had made that comment in the debate on the Address. The fact is that there is a very considerable demand for manpower in the distributive trades. They are not at all heavily manned at the present time. Therefore, the interregnum which may occur between the abrogation of the war-time machinery and the passing of legislation will not react to the disadvantage of the shop assistants, and, therefore, no real hardship is involved by the action taken by Her Majesty's Government.

2.48 a.m.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: I have only two qualifications for intervening in this debate. One was revived in my mind by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley), who put his case with exceeding


lucidity. I did not know until he mentioned it that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was pleading my case when he was making his speech in the House of Commons in 1911, because at that time and for two years previously I had been a shop assistant working until 12 o'clock on Saturday night and 1 o'clock on Sunday morning, and I would have been very much more grateful if I had known that he had been so eloquent on my behalf at that time.
The second qualification is that for a short time I was Minister of Labour and had to consider this question. It would be a great mistake for any hon. Member to regard this as a simple proposition. There is a real conflict here between the interests of the shop assistants on one side and the workers on the other. There always is a very great danger—against which one must always guard—that the worker or the producer is sometimes inclined to give himself a black eye as a consumer. The shop assistant can protect himself as a producer and, at the same time, give himself great difficulties as a consumer—and he can also cause other workers difficulties.
What may be a narrow and short view in the interests of the shop assistant as a worker may be against the general interests of the workers and also against his own interests in the long run; but I should have thought that if those were the considerations which were uppermost in the minds of hon. Members opposite they should not have allowed this Order to lapse, because if it be the fact that this has gone on for so long without too much inconvenience the Government ought to have waited until they had legislation prepared before doing what they are doing now.
There is no great urgency about this matter. Indeed, there is less urgency now than there has been since 1945. For six years, from 1945 onwards, production in Great Britain increased by 5 per cent., 6 per cent. and 7 per cent. each year. In the last year it has fallen. In fact, all the information we have goes to show that there is a slight—I do not want to exaggerate it—increase in unemployment; but there is a sharp fall in overtime and a very sharp increase in part-time; so that if there has been a case

for revising this Order there is not a case now.

Mr. Osborne: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there is a case for revision in the case of the married women who went back into industry at the response of the Socialist Minister of Labour, in order to do a job from 1948 and 1949 onwards.

Mr. Bevan: All I am saying is that if there was any urgency in the matter it is less urgent now than it was then. What I am saying to hon. Members opposite—and we do not want to get into too partisan a spirit about this, because we are all agreed that there is a real social problem here—is that there is a problem of adjusting the needs of the shop assistants and the needs of the purchasing public.
Why, therefore, have the Government now thrown this apple of discord into the situation, because all that will arise from this, unfortunately, will be revenge legislation? If the Government do something which offends the psychology of the distributive workers they will seek the earliest opportunity of getting their revenge and we shall merely have a pendulum. I should have thought the sensible thing to do would have been to leave the situation where it is preparatory to amending legislation, and let us have the opportunity of considering it in a very much more calm atmosphere than exists at five minutes to three in the morning.
I come back to the point that I was making. Of course, there is inconvenience and frustration. The women who are working cannot get access to the shops, but that is less now than at any time. That is the whole point. In fact, there has been in many parts of the country a very sharp reduction in the number of women working. In Scotland and in South Wales there has been a reduction, and we should like to ask what is the mandate for this, what is the urgency, what is driving the Government to this action at this moment? Who has asked for it? I think the Home Secretary ought to tell the House why he is doing this at this time, when so much urgency existed before.
In the next place, I think that hon. Members ought to pay some attention to the highly significant fact that my hon.


Friend the Member for Ogmore brought out, which shocked me when I heard it, namely, that the number of distributive workers in this country had fallen by 400,000 as compared with pre-war. That is a most extraordinary figure. I would ask the House to reflect what an enormous economy in manpower that represents. In other words, what it means is that more civilised behaviour in the shops—the concentration of shopping over a smaller number of hours in the day without too much inconvenience to the public—has saved the nation 400,000 workers a year. That is a very important consideration indeed.
It means that, apart from the individual justice that has been done, apart from the hardship that has been removed, apart from the real cruelty that has been prevented, the nation has benefited to the extent of 400,000 by insisting on the purchaser disciplining himself or herself in buying things at the shops. That is a very important consideration indeed, and ought to be taken into account when we are considering legislation of this sort.
I come to the next point in the earnest hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will not encourage the employment of blind alley workers in the shops. The point was made by the hon. Member for Bucks, South (Mr. R. Bell) that there can be shifts in shops. There can, of course, be shifts in some shops. The great multiple stores can be so organised that there can be shifts in them, but there cannot be shifts in small shops, and the small shops insist on having the same hours as the big shops. The small shops are much bigger in number than the big shops. Before you know where you are, you will have a very large number of small shops trying to eke out their hours by employing boys and girls.

Several Hon. Members: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bevan: It is no use hon. Members shaking their heads. I went to work when 11 years old for 2s. 6d. a week, though I may not have been worth more. The only reason that I was working there was that the man who employed me had to keep his shop open because the other shops kept open and he had to wait for the last customer. It is nonsense to argue that they do not keep open if it does not pay them to do so. The point is that

they must keep open to the last minute to which their competitors keep open.

Mr. R. Bell: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that during the summer, in the past few years, when the later hours have been allowed, shopkeepers have not availed themselves to the full extent permitted?

Mr. Bevan: I would have thought that that is the complete answer to his proposition. If the hon. Member will go to any provincial town he will not find any shop closing before the hour to which another shop is permitted to keep open. I think that on this matter hon. Members on this side of the House have a little more experience than hon. Members opposite. I therefore seriously suggest that the Government ought not to create once more the situation in which shopkeepers are encouraged to employ boys and girls in the evenings.
If this proposition goes through, permitting up to eight o'clock and nine o'clock on the late nights, it will mean, quite often: nine o'clock, close the shop, then do up the cash, then clean up and make everything ready for the following day. Then they go home, and perhaps their home is an hour's distance from the shop. So a boy or girl assistant reaches home at 10 or 11 at night. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is grinning about. It may be a congenital weakness. This is a serious matter indeed for a large number of people, and we believe that it is entirely frivolous on the part of the Government to have done what they are doing when they have plenty of time for reflecting about it.

Mr. Nabarro: It is also a congenital weakness on the part of the right hon. Gentleman constantly to exaggerate the conditions of employment of shopworkers.

Mr. Bevan: I thought the proposition I was putting was quite self-evident.
If we are to have staggered hours for big stores we cannot have them for the small shops. Therefore, if the mistresses and masters of small shops find it difficult to remain at the counter for so long they will have a disposition to employ a boy or girl quite unnecessarily waiting for customers to arrive. I should not have thought that an exaggeration. It is a moderate description. It is what happens


in shops all over the country when there are long hours.
Unless we hear something from the Government we have not heard so far the best thing to do is to allow this Prayer. Let us have a proper examination of the whole situation in a spirit of mutual reciprocity, resolving that there is a genuine and real conflict in this between shop assistant and customer—a real conflict of interest that ought to be resolved without leaving bad feelings on either side.

3.3 a.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I should like to say with all sincerity that I very much welcome the way in which the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) opened his speech and I should like him to believe that the difficulty which he poses was apparent to me when I had to consider this matter.
There is one point which I think we ought to have in mind, because I think some of those who addressed us have not had it in mind. That is that the provisions, whose revocation we are considering, substituted for the general closing hours of 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. on the late night laid down by the Act of 1928, the hours of 6 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. on the late night, for four months only of the year—from the beginning of November to the beginning of March.

Mr. S. O. Davies: During the winter months. Shocking.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes, the winter months.
The point is a clear one, and a fair one to this extent, that for the other months there was no question of there being these restrictions, and it is significant that during the four years that have passed between the reception of the Gowers Report, and the coming into office of the present Government no action was taken with regard to the eight months when this Order did not apply. I do not make it a party matter, and I only put it as far as this: that following what the right hon. Gentleman has said it shows that there is a difficult balance in this matter. I hope that he will think that is a fair way of putting it. I am

not trying to score a point about one Government acting and another not.
As the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) pointed out, with great frankness, although it is now included in a Section of a purely consolidation Act, we are dealing with a Defence Regulation, because the Act lays down, in Section 7, that it must be treated as a Defence Regulation. Therefore, the criteria for judging whether a Defence Regulation must be maintained should be applied. When this provision was first introduced by Defence Regulation 60AB it was to save fuel, relieve transport, and to clear the shopping centres in the early evening as an air raid precaution. It was continued after the war partly, for one period, to save fuel and power and, partly, I suppose, to await the appointment and Report of this Committee.
The mover of the Prayer made quite clear that he did not support it on the grounds of A.R.P. or transport. He said that the question of electricity might be involved, but I am told that after 6 o'clock that is not important. Therefore, we are in the position that the original reasons for this Order have completely gone, and that point weighed not only with me but with those who came to see me and spoke to me about it.

Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting to the House that at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has reduced the importation of food in Great Britain, because we cannot afford the foreign exchange to buy it, we ought not to economise fuel that we can sell abroad for foreign exchange?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am told that after 6 p.m. that point has no relevance.

Mr. Bevan: It has.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: We are past the peak at 6 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: Really!

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The right hon. Gentleman not only must make, but has made, better points than that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) must try to contain himself. We gave the hon. Member for Ogmore an absolutely clear run, as I


hope we always will to someone who has a cri de cœur on something he believes and believes strongly. It is only fair that, even if hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like sitting up as late as this, they should try to listen to an answer without spasmodic interruption.
The point has to be borne in mind that the effect of revocation here is that the general closing hours of 8 o'clock, with 9 o'clock on the late night, once more apply throughout the year instead of for merely eight months.

Mrs. Braddock: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say who came to see him?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am coming to that. Surely I can select my points in my own way. I will deal with the points mentioned by the hon. Lady, but I cannot deal with them all at once.

Mrs. Braddock: The Home Secretary said that somebody came to see him.

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): Order. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be given a hearing.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am going to deal with that point, and I shall try to deal with all the points that have been made. The hon. Lady is not a Fuehrer in this House and she cannot dictate in what sequence the points must be taken.

Mrs. Braddock: I do not know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about. We know his peculiarities in Liverpool, but he need not bring them into the House.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry, I forgot for the moment that the hon. Lady was a constituent of mine. We will keep these discussions for another time. I must be careful—

Mrs. Braddock: Very careful.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: —about the vote I get from Zigzag Road.

Mrs. Braddock: Very careful, indeed.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I promised the hon. Lady that I would come to the points that she mentioned. I was about to point out that under Section 8 of the Act, even if this revocation takes place,

local authorities have power to make closing orders fixing earlier closing hours, but not earlier than 7 o'clock, for any trade or business throughout their area or any part of it.
I hasten to say that the procedure for making that kind of order is that the consent of two-thirds of the shopkeepers concerned is required and that the order must be confirmed. But, of course, it does meet the situation—that is why I quoted it—in the case where what the hon. Gentleman called the pirates or rogue elephants are acting contrary to the practice of the majority of shopkeepers. It is relevant to know that that order can be made, not only—

Mr. Padley: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will give way in a moment. Not only can the orders be made, but orders are already in force in many local government areas covering a variety of classes of shops, although, I admit, few of these orders apply to all classes of shops.

Mr. Padley: That power existed before the war, but the position was still that which I described in my speech. How, therefore, can the Home Secretary claim that that is a safeguard?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is a safeguard to this extent. The hon. Gentleman put the hypothesis, which is, obviously, one hypothesis, that there may be a small number of pirates or rogue elephants who are spoiling the ground for the other people, and this is a procedure by which the other people can operate.
I have mentioned the general point, which is one which should not be forgotten. I do not want to anticipate a debate which is to take place tomorrow on emergency powers, but I think it is a point that everyone bears in mind, that if the necessity for making Defence Regulations no longer exists it is a very severe thing to keep them on when the conditions have disappeared.
I ask the House to consider one other point, because I have listened with great care to the speeches and nobody has made it so far. There no longer appears to be any justification for having different statutory closing hours in winter or summer. It is an interesting fact that nobody has suggested any reason in the speeches in this debate.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Is there not the point that since the war we have been very concerned about the number of accidents on the roads in the hour immediately following darkness, and will not this mean that people will be out at the very hour at which it is most dangerous to be on the streets?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is not a point which has ever been urged upon me, and I should want a considerable amount of evidence before I was prepared to accept it. I have been asked, and I want to tell the House, about the consultations which I had. As I told the hon. Member, I thought it right, in July, before I came to any conclusions, that I should hear the different points of view, and I was fortunate enough to have the hon. Member among those present. He will remember the people who were there. I will give the various groups and then the views which they took; I will not give the names of the people but of the associations which they represented.
There were the representatives of the National Federation of Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Associations, of the Drapers' Chamber of Trade, of the Retail Distributors Association, of the Multiple Shops Federation, of the Cooperative Union, Ltd., of the National Chamber of Trade, and of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, represented by the hon. Member and others, and the Early Closing Association.
The division was that the National Federation of Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Associations, the Co-operative Union Ltd., the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the Early Closing Association were against revocation; the Drapers' Chamber of Trade, the Retail Distributors Association, the Multiple Shops Federation and the National Chamber of Trade were for revocation.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland made similar inquiries in Scotland. There consultation was by letter, and the result was that the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the men's outfitters, the ironmongers, and the paint and china merchants were strongly opposed to revocation; the Cooperative Union and the Chamber of Trade, after incomplete consultation with constituent organisations, were against

revocation, but without strong views; the drapers were strongly in favour of revocation, and the bakers, butchers, chemists, fruiterers, shoe repairers and tailors agreed that revocation would be desirable.
I say at once that the hon. Member for Ogmore and his union gave me their views, and we have heard the reason for them. But the employers' organisations with the largest and most widely represented membership were strongly in favour of revocation, both on grounds of principle and on grounds of practice. In principle, they could see no justification for continuing these emergency regulations and maintaining the entirely artificial distinction between summer and winter hours. In practice, they said, the effect of revocation would be small, but they said there was an actual public demand for somewhat later closing hours than six o'clock in some trades in some areas, and that it was wrong that shopkeepers should be prevented from meeting this demand.
I agree that this is a matter of experience and, therefore, I want to put again—

Mr. Padley: I hesitate to interrupt again, but would the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear to the House that each one of the employers' organisations to which he has referred simultaneously pressed him to introduce amending legislation to implement at a minimum the recommendations of the Gowers Report?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Certainly. I quite agree. I was not going to omit that point. The last thing I want to do is to give a coloured account in any way. What I wanted to make clear was—and I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree—that the arguments that were put to me against revocation were that the public had now been educated in their shopping habits and that few of them either wanted or needed to shop after 6 o'clock. The same arguments have been put in the course of this debate.
The next argument—and this was the one pressed most seriously, so it appeared to me—was that if the provisions were revoked, individual traders were likely to steal a march from their rivals by closing late and so compelling others unwillingly


to conform or to be put at a competitive disadvantage, and that because of that it would be a trend—I do not think it was put higher—in the direction of conditions before the war.

Mr. Julian Snow: Mr. Julian Snow (Lichfield and Tamworth) rose—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do think that I ought to be allowed to develop my argument for a little while.
There was also the argument which the hon. Member for Ogmore has put on the question of the waste of manpower. I suggest that these views, especially when we remember that we are dealing with four months out of the 12 months in the year, were based on an unduly alarmist estimate of the probabilities. There is always the remedy, as I have said, of a closing order if two-thirds of the shopkeepers agree. But I want to make clear again that the decision taken is without prejudice to the question of what is a suitable general hour.
Being then in that position and having a balance of views and trying to address my mind to the question which the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale put so clearly to us, I turned to the Gowers Report. The Gowers Committee, at the time that they reported, came down in favour of seven o'clock. The hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon) quoted part of paragraph 18, but it is very important to see the reason behind the conclusion which she and her colleagues came to in favour of seven o'clock instead of six o'clock.
Perhaps I might quote two passages from the next paragraph. In paragraph 19 the Committee say:
Having carefully considered the arguments on both sides, we find ourselves unconvinced by those which were used to support six and seven.
That is six o'clock, and a late day of seven o'clock:
Much of what was said was, we thought, coloured by two fallacies. It is now the general custom of shops to close before the statutory hour, some long before it. It was argued that because people had become accustomed to shopping before six in present circumstances they would be content to go on doing so when there were plenty of things to buy, and no ration books or coupons. The other fallacy was a too ready assumption that the only question that needed to be asked was what was the earliest hour that would not be intolerably inconvenient to the public.

Then comes the bit which my hon. Friend quoted about the 5.30 p.m. point.
Then, in the next paragraph, it is stated:
These conclusions were strikingly confirmed by the results of the Social Survey. These showed that 30 per cent. of the shopping public want a closing hour after 6.15 p.m. As many as 41 per cent. of this group are persons mainly responsible for the household shopping. An occupational analysis of the group shows that 69 per cent. of it are workers including those in the distributive trades.

Mr. Padley: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the sample in that survey was 2,000 out of over 30 million consumers? When the occupational analyses were made, about 12 miners out of 650,000 were interviewed. Would he not agree that the number in the sample, and the geographical distribution offends every principle of the modern Gallup Poll?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No; it is something on which Dr. Gallup, or anyone else taking polls, has very strong views. The difficulty is to try to find something to go on.

Miss Bacon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted the whole of a paragraph without quoting the last sentence, which says:
The survey also indicates that a closing hour of 7 p.m. would satisfy the vast majority of the public.
The Prayer seeks to try to prevent that hour being 8 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I started by saying that the Gowers recommendation was 7 p.m., and I told the House that the hon. Lady and her colleagues had said that the 6 p.m. hour would not fit, in their view, the conditions of people who are housewives and also workers. That is why I came to the conclusion that there should be revocation. I came to the view that if 8 p.m. is too late, 6 p.m. is too early, and that revocation would be welcomed by the public, and was welcomed by the majority of the shopkeepers.
For these reasons, I decided that I should make a revocation. I agreed that these hours of 8 p.m. and 9 p.m.—and here I agree with the Gowers Report—must not be allowed to continue indefinitely—[Laughter]. The hon. Lady laughs, but I would point out and I do not want to make this a party matter,


that the Labour Government had four years in which to do something and left these hours in operation for eight months of the year, and the Order applied for four months.
The Labour Government were content to leave these hours, and, therefore, I think it rather odd for the hon. Lady to laugh in that fashion, especially when I say that, after a year in office, I am prepared to consider legislation and to hurry on the consultations which must take place before any legislation can be made. That will be done. I cannot, of course, give promise when the legislation will be introduced, but I can promise that negotiations and consultations will take place. I have expressed my view upon the matter, and I hope that the hon. Member for Ogmore, having made his demonstration, will not proceed further with this Prayer.

3.30 a.m.

Mr. George Darling: The Co-operative movement has been mentioned in the discussion tonight, and I should like to express the point of view of that movement on the action of the Home Secretary in extending the shop closing hours. We cannot understand why he decided to revoke the Order, and after the defence he made tonight we are more mystified than we were before, because his case does not hold water.
In dividing the representation in the way he did, it is significant that the right hon. and learned Gentleman comes down on the side of the larger trading organisations against those who, like the Early Closing Association and the Co-operative movement, represent the consumer and the shoppers and not the shopkeepers. In fact, the point that the Co-operative makes on this is that there has been no general demand for the revoking of the Order or for the extension of shopping hours, and even in the discussion that the Home Secretary had with the trading associations he himself knows that there was considerable opposition.
I agree with the arithmetic of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because when we add together the Cooperative movement, the Grocers' Federation and other bodies opposed to

the Order they add up to considerable sections of the trading organisation, and it is significant, I think, that it is bodies like the Retail Distributors' Association, which represent the large departmental stores, that weighed with the Home Secretary.
The Co-operative movement has not heard of any demand for any longer shopping hours. If there had been such a demand by the people who do their shopping at the "Co-ops"—and there are over one million of them in London—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) said, representations would have been made to the societies. So far as I know, in no Co-operative Society in the country have the customers asked for an extension of the shopping hours, and had they wanted such an extension they had only to go to the quarterly or half-yearly meetings and make the point.
The Home Secretary has quoted a section of shopping opinion which has been included in the Gowers Report. I do not want to make a serious point of this at the moment, and I do not want to dispute too much about statistical methods, but I should be very loath to accept as a genuine representative opinion of shoppers in this country such a small sample, and a sample which was taken in such an unrepresentative kind of way. I am not convinced that that kind of statistical method helps us at all, but so far as the main argument goes—and it seems to me a simple one—the Co-operative movement feels that the present Order might well continue until we have the legislation we have been talking about so much tonight.
For the life of me I cannot see why there is any need to alter the system we have had, seeing there was no real public demand for a change. The demand for this change has come from certain trade interests. Why should we give in to that section to the disadvantage of economical trading in the retail side of our industry? Why should we make the alteration in the way that has been made in revoking this Order?
I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), who said that if the other workers in industry could work shifts shop assistants might be able to work shifts, too. Since


I started work at the age of 14 I have been engaged in industries in which there have been shifts, including this one. It has been pointed out in the Report of the Productivity Committee that have been looking at things in the United States—it is an obvious point—that double shift system can only be worked in an industry which is open for at least 16 hours a day. No one suggests that the shops here should be open for that period.
I quite agree with the hon. Member for Bucks, South (Mr. R. Bell) that we ought to look at some such system for our shops when considering future legislation, but we have not reached that point in this country yet. The shopping hours for workers have been cut down to 40 to 44 hours a week, and in any case the shift system would be exceedingly difficult to organise. We cannot do it fairly because of the large number of small shops in this country, and there is no comparison between the United States and ourselves on that point.
The Order has determined the shopping hours for the whole year, even though the Home Secretary was quite right when he made the point about the eight months' period. The point I want to make is that any alteration in the shopping hours is bound in present circumstances to increase the cost of distribution. It is bound to increase wages costs either by the assistants working overtime or by the engagement of additional workers without any additional trade.
No one has suggested that the increase in shopping hours that will follow from this revocation will, in fact, increase the total amount of goods distributed. It will still be the same amount. The cost of distribution is being increased when it ought to be brought down. In many trades retailers, as hon. Members opposite who are in the retail trade know, are operating on low margins, and any increase of distribution costs forced upon them by their small trading competitors taking advantage of the revoking of this Order, will be bound to lead to an increase either in employment of labour or in payment for overtime to existing staff. All that will mean an increase in the cost of distribution. The traders will have to pass that on to the consumer, which will mean increased prices.
To return to my original point, we still cannot see, after the defence we have heard from the Home Secretary, why the change is to be made now. There seems to be no reason for it. We could have gone on, for some years, perhaps, if need be, until we reached the point where we could introduce legislation to deal with the recommendations of the Gowers Report. Now the whole of this business has been thrown into the melting pot and will lead to acrimonious discussion which will not be helpful to retail distribution. The whole business seems to me to be unwise.
The Home Secretary can take responsibility for his actions in this matter, but the effect on retail distribution is going to be such that I think this Prayer ought to be carried, and that the Order revoking the Regulations ought not to be brought into operation. We ought to hurry up the legislation which will give effect to the recommendations of the Gowers Committee. In the meantime, we ought to retain the methods and closing hours which we have had for the last four or five years.

3.42 a.m.

Mr. Julian Snow: I am sorry that the Home Secretary has left the Chamber. I have been in the Chamber during the whole of this debate, which is more than most hon. Members opposite can say.
I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman's performance tonight, to put it kindly, was that of a very tired man. There is no other explanation of the lack of conviction with which he presented his case. As to the meeting which he convened, I think the House will take note that it was the interest of the shopkeepers which was allowed to prevail and not of the overwhelmingly greater number of shop assistants, whose interests were at issue. I will go further than saying that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was dispirited and unconvincing: I do not think he was even frank with the House.
I think it is wrong to consider this Order except in the context of the economic state of the country. We are passing into a deflationary phase, and that must involve unemployment. Anyone who ridicules that idea is burying his head in the sand. I therefore suggest that the real motive for lengthening shop


working hours is that the distributive industry can provide, has shown by the pre-war employment figures, that it can absorb, or can provide employment for, about 400,000, even half-a-million, additional workers. This is the agency which the Government hopes to provide to mop up the surplus labour which will be dismissed from the productive, as opposed to the distributive industries. That, I believe is the motive behind this Order.
Speaker after speaker tonight has asked where was the pressure for the lengthening of these hours. We have heard that it was not the chambers of commerce or trade which approached their local M.Ps., demanding such lengthening. I have seen no approach. I have not had any approach from individual shopkeepers or even from the Housewives' League—that body of Minervas in shining armour who seem to spend part of their time, according to the Birmingham and London Press on Monday, designing a human flogging machine.
That League, one would have thought, would have taken action in this matter if they thought their interests were adversely affected. I have received two letters—one from the local branch of my union, and one from a gentleman written characteristically from a well-off looking address, both pointing out that this Order will mean exploitation of the workers whose history of exploitation is a matter of shame to this country. I speak with a little experience. Before the war, when Development Areas, or derelict areas, were sending flocks of men and women to London and to big provincial cities to secure employment at very low wage rates, anyone who knew Oxford Street knew that young women came from Wales and Scotland to London to work at wages definitely below the maintenance level.
Trade union experience, during and after the war, has taught the families of those areas not to tolerate depreciation of the working conditions of the distributive

industries. I think there is another danger about this measure. It is going to force up consumption of goods on the home market. An inflationary tendency is something which the Government should not want. Another point is that the discouragement of the workers in the small shops when the interest of the employers is looked after so carefully by this Government will be serious indeed.

Everyone knows that in the Co-operative movement, and to an improved extent in the bigger shops, there is a recognition of the union in question, and working conditions are beginning to improve. In the case of the Co-operative movement they set a high standard indeed. Everyone knows, however, that in the small shops there has been an attitude of antagonism to the trade union, and in pre-war days any attempt to join the union meant the sack. It is because advantage is being taken of an army of people in the small shops who dare not join the union that the Government is taking the opportunity of trying to split the union and disrupt organised labour. This Order is reactionary. It will produce anarchy in the distributive trade, and I hope, for this reason, that this Prayer will succeed.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: There can be no point of order.

Mr. Fernyhough: I was on my feet before the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury rose, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: It does not matter.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 288; Noes, 265.

Division No. 8.]
AYES
[3.46 a.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Arbuthnot, John
Baldwin, A. E.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Banks, Col. C.


Alport, C. J. M.
Assheton, Rt. Hon R. (Blackburn, W.)
Barbar, Anthony


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Barlow, Sir John


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Baker, P. A. D.
Baxter, A. B.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Beach, Maj. Hicks




Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Harden, J. R. E.
Mellor, Sir John


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Molson, A. H. E.


Bell, Ranald (Bucks, S.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Harvey, Air-Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)
Nicholls, Harmar


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Birch, Nigel
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Bishop, F. P.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Black, C. W.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Heath, Edward
Nugent, G. R. H.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Henderson, John (Catheart)
Nutting, Anthony


Boyle, Sir Edward
Higgs, J. M. C.
Oakshott, H. D.


Braine, B. R.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Odey, G. W.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hollis, M. C.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Osborne, C.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hope, Lord John
Partridge, E.


Bullard, D. G.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bullus, Wing-Commander, E. E.
Horobin, I. M.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Burden, F. F. A.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Peyton, J. W. W.


Butcher, H. W.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Campbell, Sir David
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Powell, J. Enoch


Carson, Hon. E.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Channon, H.
Hurd, A. R.
Profumo, J. D.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Raikes, H. V.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Cole, Norman
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Redmayne, M.


Colegate, W. A.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Renton, D. L. M.




Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Cooper, Sqn-Ldr. Albert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Robertson, Sir David


Cooper, Key, E. M.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Cranborne, Viscount
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Roper, Sir Harold


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Kaberry, D.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Russell, R. S.


Crouch, R. F.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Lambton, Viscount
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Davidson, Viscountess
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Scott, R. Donald


Deedes, W. F.
Leather, E. H. C.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Shepherd, William


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Donner, P. W.
Lindsay, Martin
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Linstead, H. N.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norten)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Snadden, W. McN.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Soames, Capt. C.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Low, A. R. W.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Speir, R. M.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Erroll, F. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Fell, A.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Stevens, G. P.


Finlay, Graeme
McAdden, S. J.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
McCallum, Major D.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Storey, S.


Fort, R.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Foster, John
McKibbin, A. J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Summers, G. S.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Sutcliffe, H.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Maclean, Fitzroy
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Macleod, Rt. Hon Iain (Enfield, W.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Teeling, W.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Godber, J. B.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Markham, Major S. F.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Gough, C. F. H.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Gower, H. R.
Marples, A. E.
Tilney, John


Graham, Sir Fergus
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Maude, Angus
Turner, H. F. L.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maudling, R.
Turton, R. H.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Vane, W. M. F.







Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Watkinson, H. A.
Wills, G.


Vosper, D. F.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
White Baker (Canterbury)
Wood, Hon. R.


Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)



Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.


Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Fienburgh, W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Adams, Richard
Finch, H. J.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Albu, A. H.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Manuel, A. C.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Follick, M.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Foot, M. M.
Mayhew, C. P.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Forman, J. C.
Mellish, R. J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mikardo, Ian


Awbery, S. S.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Mitchison, G. R.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Moody, A. S.


Baird, J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Balfour, A.
Gibson, C. W.
Morley, R.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Glanville, James
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Bartley, P.
Gooch, E. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mort, D. L.


Bence, C. R.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Moyle, A.


Benn, Wedgwood
Grey, C. F.
Mulley, F. W.


Benson, G.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Murray, J. D.


Beswick, F.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Nally, W.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Blackburn, F.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Oldfield, W. H.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hamilton, W. W.
Oliver, G. H.


Blyton, W. R.
Hannan, W.
Orbach, M.


Boardman, H.
Hardy, E. A.
Oswald, T.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hargreaves, A.
Padley, W. E.


Bowden, H. W.
Hastings, S.
Paget, R. T.


Bowles, F. G.
Hayman, F. H.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Brockway, A. F.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Herbison, Miss M.
Pannell, Charles


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pargiter, G. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hobson, C. R.
Parker, J.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Holman, P.
Paton, J.


Burke, W. A.
Houghton, Douglas
Pearson, A.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Peart, T. F.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Callaghan, L. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Popplewell, E.


Carmichael, J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Porter, G.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Champion, A. J.
Hynd, H (Accrington)
Proctor, W. T.


Chapman, W. D.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rankin, John


Clunie, J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Reeves, J.


Coldrick, W.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Collick, P. H.
Janner, B.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Rhodes, H.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Daines, P.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Ross, William


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Keenan, W.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyan, C.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Short, E. W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
King, Dr. H. M.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Deer, G.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Delargy, H. J.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dodds, N. N.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Donnelly, D. L.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Slater, J.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lewis, Arthur
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Snow, J. W.


Edelman, M.
MacColl, J. E.
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
McGhee, H. G.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McInnes, J.
Sparks, J. A.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Steele, T.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
McLeavy, F.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Ewart, R.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Fernyhough, E.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Field, W. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.







Swingler, S. T.
Watkins, T. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Sylvester, G. O.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Weitzman, D.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Wells, William (Walsall)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Thomas, David (Aberdare)
West, D. G.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Wyatt, W. L.


Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Yates, V. F.


Timmons, J.
Wigg, George
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Tomney, F.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.



Turner-Samuels, M.
Wilkins, W. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Mr. Royle and Mr. Horace Holmes.


Wallace, H. W.
Williams, David (Neath)

Question put accordingly.

The House divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 288.

Division No. 9.]
AYES
[4.0 a.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Driberg, T. E. N.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Adams, Richard
Dugdale, Rt. Hon John (W. Bromwich)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Albu, A. H.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Edelman, M.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Keenan, W.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Kenyon, C.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Awbery, S. S.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
King, Dr. H. M.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Baird, J.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Balfour, A.
Ewart, R.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Fernyhough, E.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Bartley, P.
Field, W. J.
Lewis, Arthur


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Fienburgh, W.
Lindgren, G. S.


Bence, C. R.
Finch, H. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Benn, Wedgwood
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
MacColl, J. E.


Benson, G.
Follick, M.
McGhee, H. G.


Beswick, F.
Foot, M. M.
McInnes, J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Forman, J. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Bing, G. H. C.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McLeavy, F.


Blackburn, F.
Freeman, John (Watford)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Blenkinsop, A.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Blyton, W. R.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Beardman, H.
Gibson, C. W.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Glanville, James
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bowden, H. W.
Gooch, E. G.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bowles, F. G.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Manuel, A. C.


Brockway, A. F.
Grey, C. F.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Brock, Dryden (Halifax)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mayhew, C. P.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mellish, R. J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.


Burke, W. A.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Moody, A. S.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hamilton, W. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hannan, W.
Morley, R.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hardy, E. A.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Carmichael, J.
Hargreaves, A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hastings, S.
Mort, D. L.


Champion, A. J.
Hayman, F. H.
Moyle, A.


Chapman, W. D.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Mulley, F. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)
Murray, J. D.


Clunie, J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Nally, W.


Coldrick, W.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Collick, P. H.
Hobson, C. R.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Holman, P.
Oldfield, W. H.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Houghton, Douglas
Oliver, G. H.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Orbach, M.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oswald, T.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Padley, W. E.


Daines, P.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paget, R. T.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Pannell, Charles


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pargiter, G. A.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Janner, B.
Parker, J.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Paton, J.


Deer, G.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Pearson, A.


Delargy, H. J.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Peart, T. F.


Dodds, N. N.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Donnelly, D. L.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Popplewell, E.







Porter, G.
Snow, J. W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Sorensen, R. W.
Weitzman, D.


Proctor, W. T.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wells, Percy (Favarsham)


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Sparks, J. A.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Rankin, John
Steele, T.
West, D. G.


Reeves, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Raid, William (Camlachie)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Rhodes, H.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Wigg, George


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Swingler, S. T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Sylvester, G. O.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, David (Neath)


Ross, William
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Short, E. W.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Timmons, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Tomney, F.
Wyatt, W. L.


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Yates, V. F.


Slater, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wallace, H. W.



Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Watkins, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Royle and Mr. Horace Holmes.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Cranborne, Viscount
Heald, Sir Lionel


Alport, C. J. M.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Heath, Edward


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Crouch, R. F.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Arbuthnot, John
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Davidson, Viscountess
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Baker, P. A. D.
Deedes, W. F.
Hollis, M. C.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Baldwin, A. E.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hope, Lord John


Banks, Col. C.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry


Barber, Anthony
Donner, P. W.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Barlow, Sir John
Doughty, C. J. A.
Horobin, I. M.


Baxter, A. B.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Drayson, G. B.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Drewe, C.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hurd, A. R.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Erroll, F. J.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Fell, A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Birch, Nigel
Finlay, Graeme
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Bishop, F. P.
Fisher, Nigel
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Black, C. W.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fort, R.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Foster, John
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Braine, B. R.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Joynson Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Kaberry, D.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Keeling, Sir Edward


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. (Pollok)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lambert, Hon. G.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lambton, Viscount


Browne, Jack (Govan)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Godber, J. B.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Bullard, D. G.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gough, C. F. H.
Leather, E. H. C.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gower, H. R.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Burden, F. F. A.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Butcher, H. W.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Campbell, Sir David
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lindsay, Martin


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Linstead, H. N.


Carson, Hon. E.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Cary, Sir Robert
Harden, J. R. E.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Channon, H.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Low, A. R. W.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Cole, Norman
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Colegate, W. A.
Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
McAdden, S. J.







McCallum, Major D.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Storey, S.


McKibbin, A. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Powell, J. Enoch
Summers, G. S.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Sutcliffe, H.


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Profumo, J. D.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Raikes, H. V.
Teeling, W.


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Redmayne, M.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Markham, Major S. F.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Renton, D. L. M.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Marples, A. E.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Robertson, Sir David
Tilney, John


Maude, Angus
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Maudling, R.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Turner, H. F. L.


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Roper, Sir Harold
Turton, R. H.


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Mellor, Sir John
Russell, R. S.
Vane, W. M. F.


Molson, A. H. E.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Vosper, D. F.


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Nicholls, Harmar
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Scott, R. Donald
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Shepherd, William
Watkinson, H. A.


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Nutting, Anthony
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Oakshott, H. D.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Odey, G. W.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


O'Neill Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Snadden, W. McN.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Soames, Capt. C.
Wills, G.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Speir, R. M.
Wood, Hon. R.


Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)



Osborne, C.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Partridge, E.
Stevens, G. P.
Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Butcher.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eight Minutes past Four o'Clock a.m., 19th November, 1952.